2025 (3) TMI 1278 - HC - Income Tax

Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144 - AO has failed to consider the reply and passed the impugned order - HELD THAT - In view of undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed voluminous reply on 24.02.2024 to the show cause notice for proposed addition which was duly considered by the AO but found unsatisfactory without assigning any reason for coming to such a conclusion and therefore the Best Judgment Assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act is not tenable in the eye of law. As relying on M/S SHUKLA BROTHERS 2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT the assessment order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AO to pass a fresh de novo order after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner if prayed for and after considering the reply of the petitioner pass assessment order giving reasons qua the submissions of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment revolve around the procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in the assessment process under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specifically:

Whether the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice.
Whether the Best Judgment Assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act was justified given the circumstances.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement for a reasoned order, are fundamental in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. The court referred to the decisions in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, which emphasize the necessity of providing reasons for decisions that adversely affect parties.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide reasons for finding the petitioner's reply unsatisfactory. The failure to assign reasons constitutes a breach of natural justice, as it denies the petitioner an understanding of why their submissions were disregarded.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had submitted a voluminous reply to the show cause notice, which was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer but dismissed without explanation. The court found this lack of reasoning to be a critical omission.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles from the cited precedents to determine that the absence of a reasoned order invalidated the assessment process, rendering the Best Judgment Assessment untenable.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's counsel did not dispute the absence of reasoning in the Assessing Officer's decision, which supported the court's conclusion of a natural justice violation.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessment order was invalid due to the lack of reasons provided by the Assessing Officer, necessitating a remand for a fresh order.

Issue 2: Justification of Best Judgment Assessment under Section 144

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 144 of the Income Tax Act allows for a Best Judgment Assessment when the taxpayer fails to comply with notices or provide satisfactory information. However, such assessments must still adhere to procedural fairness.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that even under Best Judgment Assessment, the principles of natural justice must be observed. The lack of reasons for dismissing the petitioner's submissions rendered the assessment procedurally unfair.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that the petitioner had complied with the notice requirements by submitting a detailed reply, which was not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer.
Application of law to facts: The court determined that the procedural deficiencies in the assessment process, particularly the absence of a reasoned order, invalidated the Best Judgment Assessment.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's inability to justify the lack of reasoning in the assessment order further supported the court's decision to quash the order.
Conclusions: The court held that the Best Judgment Assessment was not justified due to procedural lapses and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court cited the principle that "the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi-alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process." This underscores the necessity for reasoned orders in administrative actions.
Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the requirement for administrative authorities to provide clear reasons for their decisions, particularly when exercising quasi-judicial functions under the Income Tax Act.
Final determinations on each issue: The court quashed the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the officer to provide a reasoned order after considering the petitioner's submissions.

The court's decision highlights the critical importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in tax assessments, ensuring that taxpayers are given fair opportunities to present their case and receive reasoned decisions from authorities.

← Previous Next →