2020 (11) TMI 523 - HC - Income Tax

Best judgment assessment - as contented petitioner did not have notice of the proposed assessment proceedings and as such, the petitioner could not furnish the details - demand notice - revenue said request for stay of the operation of the impugned order would be considered by the appellate authority only if 20% of the amount due as per the impugned assessment order is deposited - HELD THAT - Assessment is based on the best judgment and no notice is addressed to the aforementioned petitioner email ID, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to set aside the impugned Assessment Order and the consequential Demand Notice without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessment remitting the matter for reconsideration subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the impugned demand as per the impugned assessment order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and informing the authorities on email about such deposit. If the petitioner makes such deposit and informs the concerned authority by email, the assessing authority shall extend an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and decide the question of assessment in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Best Judgment Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
2. Notice of proposed assessment proceedings.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Opportunity to appear before the assessing officer.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Best Judgment Assessment Order and Demand Notice, claiming lack of notice of proposed assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that without proper notice, they could not furnish details, seeking to quash the assessment order and demand.

2. The respondents contended that the impugned order was appealable, and a stay request required a 20% deposit of the amount due. They argued that notice was sent to the petitioner's provided email, and failure to respond precluded claiming a violation of natural justice to avoid the deposit.

3. In response, the petitioner's counsel stated that no notice was received on the registered email provided. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 20% of the demanded amount but insisted on the right to appear before the assessing officer to contest the Best Judgment Assessment.

4. The Court, considering the submissions and the absence of notice to the petitioner's email, set aside the Assessment Order and Demand Notice. The matter was remitted for reconsideration, with a condition that the petitioner must deposit 20% of the demand within two weeks and inform the authorities by email. Upon deposit and notification, the assessing authority would grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case. If successful, the deposited amount would be refunded.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity to contest assessments and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.