2023 (7) TMI 412 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of faceless assessment - allegation of the petitioner that it did not have the opportunity of being heard by the assessing officer before the impugned assessment order was passed and the statutory procedure as regards making of the assessment order, was not followed - HELD THAT - The impugned order categorically states that the petitioner herein could avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. - In the circumstances, we reserve liberty to the petitioner herein to avail the remedy of filing a statutory appellate remedy. In the event, the petitioner avails such a remedy and is under an obligation to make a pre-deposit before the said authority, an application may be made seeking waiver or reduction in the deposit to be made, as the case may be. In the circumstances, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority not to take any coercive action till the statutory appeal is filed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the right of the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment, financial constraints faced by the petitioner, and the possibility of seeking waiver or reduction in the deposit to be made for the statutory appeal.

Statutory Remedy of Appeal:
The impugned order mentioned that the petitioner could avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment. The court declined to interfere in the matter but allowed the petitioner to make certain observations due to financial constraints faced by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appellate remedy within four weeks, with the possibility of seeking waiver or reduction in the deposit to be made. The court emphasized that any application for waiver or reduction would be considered in accordance with the law.

Financial Constraints and Protection:
The court acknowledged the financial constraints of the petitioner, an industrial development corporation, and allowed certain observations to protect the petitioner until the matter is disposed of by the appellate authority. The petitioner was given liberty to make a representation to the competent authority to refrain from taking any coercive action until the statutory appeal is filed. The court stated that any such representation would be considered based on the unique circumstances of the case.

Disposition of the Special Leave Petition:
The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending applications, if any, also being disposed of. The judgment emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and ensuring that the petitioner has the opportunity to be heard before assessment orders are passed.