2022 (6) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s 148A (b) - petitioner was asked to give its response with supporting documents electronically in e-proceeding facility through its e-filing account on or before 18th March, 2022 - HELD THAT - When the petitioner was asked to substantiate its allegation that in compliance of the aforesaid impugned notice dated 11th March, 2022 whether on or before 18th March, 2022 it had filed any objection in compliance of the same, he could not satisfy this Court from any piece of evidence that on or before 18th March, 2022 he had responded to the impugned notice dated 11th March, 2022 or by any piece of evidence petitioner could satisfy this Court that it had made any prayer for adjournment or extension of time to file such reply. Petitioner submits that its Chartered Accountant orally requested the Assessing Officer to grant him more time and this submission of the petitioner is even not supported by any averments in the writ petition. Sitting in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as evidence taking authority to verify such oral statement if at all made by Chartered Accountant or by the Assessing Officer to verify such oral statement alleged to have been made by the Chartered Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and what appears from record we are of the view that in passing the impugned order respondent Assessing Officer has committed no procedural irregularity and in view of the fact that doors for the petitioner are not closed from making out any case for dropping the impugned re-assessment proceeding since petitioner will further get further chance to make out his case after the issuance of notice under Section 148.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2018-19 based on lack of consideration of petitioner's objection and failure to respond to the notice dated 11th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A (b).

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2022, arguing that it was passed without due consideration of the petitioner's objection and non-response to the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act. The petitioner failed to provide evidence of responding to the notice by the stipulated deadline of 18th March, 2022, or seeking an extension for submission. Despite the petitioner's claim that their Chartered Accountant orally requested more time, this assertion lacked supporting evidence in the writ petition. The Court clarified that it cannot verify oral statements without proper documentation, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims in legal proceedings.

The Court, in its assessment, found no procedural irregularity on the part of the Assessing Officer in issuing the impugned order. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner still had the opportunity to present their case following the notice under Section 148 of the Act, indicating that avenues for challenging the reassessment remained open. Consequently, the Court declined to intervene in the matter, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition (WPO No. 1943 of 2022). The decision underscored the importance of complying with procedural requirements and providing substantiated claims in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and transparent adjudication process.