2024 (10) TMI 1370 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice was not received by the petitioner and the petitioner was not provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity to submit his response/reply along with the documents to the aforesaid notice u/s 148A(b) - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order indicates that except stating that the notice u/s 148A(b) had been issued, the respondents has neither stated nor given the details/particulars regarding service of notice upon the petitioner nor any opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to submit his response/reply to the said notice. Under these circumstances coupled with the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit his reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, adopting a justice oriented approach, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of notice u/s 142A(b) of the IT Act. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of issuance of notice u/s 148 A(b).

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge orders passed under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

Analysis:

1. Writs sought by the Petitioner:
The petitioner requested writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned orders passed under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner sought to quash the orders and notices issued by the respondents and requested reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the law.

2. Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders lacked details regarding the service of notices and failed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to respond. The petitioner claimed that the absence of particulars regarding the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act violated principles of natural justice.

3. Arguments of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that there was no merit in the petition and supported the impugned orders. They argued against the petitioner's claims and asserted that the petition should be dismissed.

4. Court's Observations:
The Court noted that the impugned orders did not adequately address the service of notices to the petitioner and failed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond. Considering the petitioner's genuine reasons for not submitting a reply, the Court found the impugned orders to be violative of natural justice principles.

5. Court's Decision:
In light of the petitioner's contentions and the lack of procedural fairness in the impugned orders, the Court allowed the petition. The Court set aside the orders dated 29.03.2022, 17.03.2023, and the respective notices. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration from the stage of issuance of the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to submit a response to the notice, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, arguments presented by the parties, the Court's observations, and the final decision rendered by the High Court in response to the petition challenging the orders under the Income Tax Act.