2024 (8) TMI 1187 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment order passed beyond period of limitation - difference in the liability towards sundry creditors - HELD THAT - Prima facie, it cannot be construed that the impugned Assessment Order was passed after 30.09.2021 as there is a presumption that the order would have passed on the said date. It is also stands confirmed that the order was emailed to the petitioner on the following date i.e., on 01.10.2021 as is evident from Page No.188 of the Typed Set of Papers. The order copy was also dispatched physically to the petitioner on 04.10.2021 and received by the petitioner on 05.10.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said/held that the assessment that was completed vide impugned Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 was time barred. Also evident that the explanation of the petitioner in petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2021 has not been considered. The assessment has been completed in a hurry as otherwise the assessment would have got time barred after 30.09.2021. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor the respondents can be found fault on account of the limitation, which would operate against the respondents. To balance the interest of the parties, we set aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 and remit the case back to the respondents to pass orders on merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order under Faceless Assessment Scheme, Compliance with Notices, Digital Signatures, Time Limit for Assessment, Circular Violation, Assessment Completion Date Discrepancy, Adequacy of Explanation for Assessment Order, Alternate Remedy under Section 246A.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the introduction of Faceless Assessment. The petitioner contended that the assessment was initially with the National e-Assessment Centre and later transferred to the first respondent, with whom they complied with queries. The petitioner argued that the Assessment Order was non-est in law as the time for assessment had expired on 30.09.2021. They also claimed the order was not digitally signed and sent via email after the expiry date, making it time-barred. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged a violation of a circular requiring the involvement of the range head in finalizing assessments transferred to the first respondent.

The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the Assessment Order date, indicating it was passed after the limitation period. They referred to the e-filing portal, suggesting the order was issued on 01.10.2021. The respondent's Senior Standing Counsel defended the Assessment Order, stating it was well-reasoned and based on available material. The counsel argued that the petitioner failed to provide adequate explanations, leading to the order's issuance. The respondents suggested the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act before the Appellate Commissioner.

After considering arguments and reviewing documents, the court found no conclusive evidence that the Assessment Order was passed after 30.09.2021. The court noted the order was emailed on 01.10.2021 and physically dispatched on 04.10.2021. While acknowledging the petitioner's representation was not fully considered, the court observed that the assessment was hurried to avoid time-bar constraints. To balance the interests of both parties, the court set aside the Assessment Order and remitted the case back to the respondents for reevaluation within six months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with these observations, without costs, and closed connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions.