2024 (1) TMI 558 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - petitioner as alleged that his reply to the notice u/s 142(1) was not considered and petitioner was not given personal hearing - HELD THAT - Insofar as the question of personal hearing is concerned, from Ext. P10, it is evident that the petitioner was provided VC link and password and that therefore, the petitioner cannot say that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to him. The assessment order would disclose that all replies given by the petitioner were considered. Even if some aspects were not considered, statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order is available to the petitioner. There is no ground to entertain the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy available to him under the law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are impugning Ext. P1 notice, Ext. P8 show cause notice, Ext. P13 assessment order, and Ext. P14 demand notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Impugning Ext. P1 Notice, Ext. P8 Show Cause Notice, Ext. P13 Assessment Order, and Ext. P14 Demand Notice:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed a return for the assessment year 2017-18 disclosing a total income. Due to significant cash deposits during demonetization, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated. Notices under Sections 148, 143(2), and 142(1) were issued, requiring the petitioner to comply with various requests and submissions. The petitioner failed to provide complete documentation and explanations, leading to an addition of unexplained income to the total assessed income. The assessment order determined the total income and ordered penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC and interest charges.

Consideration of Petitioner's Reply and Personal Hearing:
The petitioner alleged that his reply to the notice under Section 142(1) was not considered and that he was not given a personal hearing. The court found that the petitioner was provided with a video conferencing link and password, indicating that an opportunity for a personal hearing was given. The assessment order reflected that all replies were considered, and any aspects not addressed could be challenged through the statutory remedy of appeal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no ground to entertain it, and advised the petitioner to explore other available legal remedies. Any pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.