9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1115 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - validity of order passed u/s 148A(d) - reopening on new set of facts - giving less than three days time to the assessee to respond - as alleged show cause notice u/s 148A(b) issued and subsequently corrigendum was issued with a different allegation alleging that the assessee had entered into bogus transactions with a different person than the person who was named in show cause notice - HELD THAT - The chain of events have been set out to show that there has been violation of principle of natural justice at different stages of the matter. The reopening of an assessment is a very serious matter and if such power is resorted to the assessee is entitled to an adequate opportunity to put forth their submissions. In the order passed u/s 148A(d) names of 12 companies have been mentioned which was never the allegation when the show cause notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act was issued and, therefore, as submitted that the assessing officer proceeded on entirely a new set of facts which were never put to the assessee. We are of the view that the reassessment proceedings has to be redone and even if the assessment order has been passed, the same is required to be set aside and the matter is to be restored to the assessing officer for a fresh consideration. Assessee appeal is allowed.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, questioning the correctness of the order and the violation of principles of natural justice in the reassessment proceedings. Comprehensive Details: 1. The intra court appeal was filed against an order passed by the assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ petition challenged this order, but the assessing officer completed reassessment proceedings before the petition was heard. 2. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, suggesting the appellant could file an appeal against the assessment order. 3. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present appeal. 4. The court heard arguments from both parties. 5. The main issue is that the correctness of the order under Section 148A(d) cannot be questioned in an appeal against the reassessment order. 6. The appellant contests the order, claiming lack of independent inquiry by the officer and questioning the reopening of the assessment. 7. The only remedy available to challenge the order under Section 148A(d) is through a writ petition before the High Court. The appellant raised concerns about show cause notices and the changing allegations during the process. 8. The appellant denied knowledge of alleged transactions, highlighting violations of natural justice throughout the assessment process. The appellant argued that the assessing officer relied on new facts not previously disclosed. 9. The court concluded that reassessment proceedings must be redone, and the assessment order set aside for fresh consideration due to procedural irregularities. 10. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. 11. The order under Section 148A(d) dated 30th March, 2022, and the consequential assessment order dated 24.03.2023 were quashed, and the matter was sent back to the assessing officer at an earlier stage. 12. The appellant was directed to provide a detailed reply and supporting documents within 15 days. 13. The assessing officer was instructed to redo the proceedings in accordance with the law after the submission of documents. 14. The appellant could request documents and the 15-day period for reply would begin upon receiving those documents.
|
