2022 (7) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - As per revenue petitioner failed to reply and respond to the proceedings initiated - as argued adequate opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the draft assessment orders not given - HELD THAT - The petitioner has shown disregard to the statutory notices issued by the Income Tax Department. The fact that the petitioner has not responded earlier and has sought for further time after giving a partial reply shows that the petitioner has not been diligent in complying with the time line set out by the respondents to complete the assessment - no merits in interfering with the impugned orders merely because the petitioner gave a partial reply to the two show cause notices dated 24.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss these writ petitions. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner in the manner known to law. WP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned assessment orders for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner failed to file returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, leading to notices under Section 148, 142(1), and a show cause notice. The petitioner responded for the first time on 18.02.2022 to the notice under Section 144. Draft assessment orders were issued on 24.03.2022 and 29.03.2022, with the petitioner seeking additional time to reply by 26.03.2022. However, the impugned orders were passed before the extended date.

The challenge raised by the petitioner is that the assessment orders were passed without providing adequate opportunity to respond to the draft assessment orders. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with statutory requirements, delaying the assessment process deliberately.

The court considered arguments from both sides and noted the petitioner's disregard for statutory notices. The petitioner's delayed responses and request for additional time after a partial reply indicated a lack of diligence in complying with timelines set by the authorities. The court found no merit in interfering with the impugned orders solely based on the partial replies provided by the petitioner.

Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted the petitioner the option to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to comply with statutory requirements and the dilatory tactics employed to delay the assessment process. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on either party, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result.