2024 (2) TMI 341 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as mandated u/s 148A(b) - obligation on the Revenue to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving upon the assessee a show cause notice specifying the time by which he should prefer a reply - HELD THAT - A personal hearing would be required for an assessee to try and convince the Income Tax Officer of his point of view in regard to the issue flagged in the show cause notice. The merit of an oral hearing lies in that the assessee can discern on what aspects of the controversy more light is needed. Thus, if an oral hearing can complement and perfect the written submissions in a case that can be decided in a myriad ways depending on the perspective that the adjudicator chooses to adopt, then it should not be dispensed with. While deciding whether or not a statutory provision mandates the grant of a personal hearing, the approach of the court must be pragmatic rather than pedantic; realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential. Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India 1989 (12) TMI 349 - SUPREME COURT Thus we are of the view that the decision in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Jesus Sales Corporation 1996 (3) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT that is relied upon by the appellant and which interpreted a statuary provision that did not provide for an opportunity of being heard to an applicant seeking the benefit of a duty exemption scheme, cannot come to the aid of the appellant herein in his attempt to show that the provisions of Section 148A should be interpreted in a like manner. As is apparent from a reading of that judgment, the court came to the conclusion that it did on finding that the statutory provision concerned did not provide for the grant of a personal hearing. It was under those circumstances that the court found that the statutory appellate authority in that case was not legally obliged to grant a personal hearing when the same was not envisaged in the statutory provision. As already noted above, the express provisions of Section 148A of the IT Act contemplate that the assessee should be granted an opportunity of being heard, and the question arising in this appeal is only whether that opportunity to be effective must include a right to a personal hearing as well. In our opinion, it should. We might also note that by an amendment to the provisions of Section 148A(b) through the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 1.4.2022, the requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee was made less rigorous by omitting the requirement of obtaining a prior approval of the specified authority before granting that opportunity. The deletion of the said pre-condition is a further indication that the relaxation of the statutory requirement of obtaining a prior approval of the specified authority was intended to simplify the procedure for granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In our view, this statutory exercise fortifies our interpretation of the provision as requiring the providing of an opportunity of personal hearing as an integral component of the opportunity of being heard granted to the assessee. Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal involves the challenge to an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice proposing a re-assessment for the assessment year 2019-20. The main issue is whether the order and notice were vitiated due to the lack of providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as mandated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act.

Judgment Details:
In the writ petition, the challenge was to Ext. P5 order passed by the Income Tax Officer without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as required by law. The learned Single Judge quashed the order and notice, directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing. The Revenue contended that issuing a show cause notice under Section 148A was sufficient to provide an opportunity of being heard, relying on previous court decisions.

The court analyzed Section 148A of the IT Act, emphasizing that the obligation to provide an opportunity of being heard goes beyond merely issuing a show cause notice. The purpose of the notice is to specify the matters for discussion, but a personal hearing is essential for the assessee to present their case effectively. The court highlighted the importance of oral hearings in complementing written submissions, quoting relevant legal opinions.

The court rejected the Revenue's argument that a show cause notice alone fulfills the obligation of providing an opportunity of being heard. It emphasized that a personal hearing allows the assessee to persuade the Income Tax Officer and clarify their position effectively. The court's interpretation was supported by an amendment to Section 148A(b) showing a simplification of the procedure for granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Writ Appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of a personal hearing as part of the opportunity of being heard granted to the assessee under Section 148A of the IT Act.