2025 (4) TMI 1629 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment order issued without generating a DIN without documents attached to the assessment order and the notice were also issued in the hand-writing signature of the AO - HELD THAT - Subsequently the AO has cured the defect and the AO issued a digitally signed letter with computer generated DIN and letter number. There is no contention of the petitioner that the online service of orders-letter present has not been served upon the petitioner. It is therefore evident that on the same date the defect was cured therefore all issues raised in this regard by the petitioner would liable to fail. Whether revenue proceeding justified in relying upon the complaint and the statement of the complainant without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant? - Not only the copy of complaint but even the documents showing transactions of the firm were made available to the petitioner. The impugned order is not based on any examination of the complainant. In fact there is no recording of the statement of the complainant or any other witness. The impugned order of assessment is based upon the materials which came to the notice of the AO. After analysing the same when the AO was of the view that despite supply of reason of proceedings and other relevant documents to the assessee as well as sufficient opportunity the assessee has failed to prove and substantiate that how undisclosed sales amount have been accounted in the books of accounts for the assessment year 2017-18 he has passed the impugned order. It is not for this Court sitting in its writ jurisdiction to analyse the kind of information and the documents which were in possession of the AO while passing the impugned order of assessment. In result we find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. These writ applications are dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to seek its statutory remedy in appeal if so advised before the competent/authority appropriate forum.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening of assessment is valid and can be quashed on grounds of procedural irregularities.

- Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant or witnesses violates principles of natural justice.

- Whether the failure to digitally sign the assessment order and notices, and absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) in such communications, renders the proceedings invalid in view of Notification No. 61/2019 and Circular No. 19/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

- Whether the penalty orders passed under Sections 270A/271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the petitioner's detailed submissions and based on ex-parte assessment orders are liable to be set aside.

- Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in the presence of alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioner.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Notices and Assessment Orders under Section 148

The legal framework comprises Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers reopening of assessments on satisfaction of reasons to believe income has escaped assessment. The Income Tax E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 (Notification No. 61/2019) and Circular No. 19/2019 mandate that all communications such as notices and orders must be digitally signed and contain a computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) to ensure authenticity and maintain audit trail.

The Court examined the petitioner's contention that notices and orders were manually signed and lacked DIN, thus violating the statutory scheme and circular, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Department admitted initial non-compliance due to technical glitches but subsequently issued digitally signed communications with DIN on the same date, curing the defect within the 15 working days stipulated by Circular No. 19/2019.

The Court held that such rectification complied with the statutory scheme and circular, and no substantial prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge based on absence of digital signature and DIN was rejected.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Opportunity to Cross-Examine

The petitioner argued that the assessment order was based on a complaint made by one of the partners, containing handwritten volumes of alleged undisclosed transactions, and that the Assessing Officer acted without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, which held that denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of adjudication is a serious violation of natural justice making the order a nullity.

The Department countered that the complaint was undated and unsigned, served on the petitioner along with voluminous documents, and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to submit written replies and explanations. The Assessing Officer did not record any statement of the complainant or any witness during the proceedings. The petitioner also did not seek personal hearing through the Department's online portal.

The Court distinguished the present case from Andaman Timber Industries on facts. Unlike that case where the order was based solely on witness statements without cross-examination, here the assessment was based on documentary evidence and information supplied by the complainant, which was shared with the petitioner. The Assessing Officer provided opportunities to the petitioner to respond and substantiate accounts but found the explanations unsatisfactory. The Court observed that the absence of recorded examination of the complainant meant that the petitioner was not denied the right to cross-examine a witness whose statement was the sole basis of the order.

Hence, the Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice warranting interference.

Maintainability of Writ Petitions in Presence of Alternative Remedies

The Department contended that the petitioner had effective statutory remedies of appeal and revision and therefore the writ petitions were not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., which emphasized that High Courts should normally not entertain writ petitions where efficacious alternative remedies exist, though the availability of such remedies does not constitute an absolute bar.

The Court acknowledged this principle and noted that while the writ petitions were maintainable, the petitioner was at liberty to pursue statutory remedies. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeals within four weeks, directing appellate authorities to consider the delay if any was occasioned by the pendency of writ petitions.

Penalty Orders under Sections 270A/271(1)(c)

The penalty orders challenged were based on the ex-parte assessment orders. The parties agreed that the fate of these writ petitions depended on the outcome of the challenges to the assessment orders. Since the assessment orders were upheld, the penalty orders also stood on firm footing. The Court dismissed the penalty-related writ petitions accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The communication dated 31.03.2022 forms part of Annexure '15' to the writ application. It has been digitally signed and contains DIN."

"The case of the petitioner would stand on a different footing from that of Andaman Timber Industries. The impugned order is not based on any examination of the complainant. There is no recording of the statement of the complainant or any other witness. The impugned order of assessment is based upon the materials which came to the notice of the Assessing Officer. After analysing the same, when the Assessing Officer was of the view that despite supply of reason of proceedings and other relevant documents to the assessee as well as sufficient opportunity, the assessee has failed to prove and substantiate that how undisclosed sales amount have been accounted in the books of accounts for the assessment year 2017-18, he has passed the impugned order."

"The High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. However, availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition."

"The defect in issuance of manual communication without DIN and digital signature was cured on the same date by issuance of digitally signed communication with DIN. Such compliance is in consonance with Circular No. 19/2019 and Notification No. 61/2019."

Final determination: The notices and assessment orders issued without initial digital signatures and DIN but subsequently regularized are valid. The assessment order passed without allowing cross-examination of the complainant is not a violation of natural justice in the absence of recorded examination of the complainant. The writ petitions challenging the assessment and penalty orders are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

← Previous Next →