2022 (7) TMI 1344 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of appeal against Faceless assessment order u/s 144B - scope of alternate remedy - petitioner argued that order impugned has been passed even without supplying the draft assessment order therefore, the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order would go to show that the contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2022 had been supplied to the petitioner. A perusal of the reply dated 24.03.2022, which was supposedly uploaded, does not indicate that any plea was taken that the draft assessment order was not received by the petitioner. However, we do not express any final opinion in this aspect of the matter. As submitted that request for personal hearing, made through the reply dated 24.03.2022, was not considered and, that apart, the reply was also not considered, purportedly on the plea that failed to load PDF documents . Assuming that there was some problem, then also it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have informed the petitioner about the same so that remedial steps could have been taken by the petitioner. We are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Three weeks time is granted to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. The petitioner may raise all grounds taken in these proceedings before this Court as also any other ground that may be available and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order declining to entertain a writ petition due to availability of alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of passing assessment order without considering petitioner's reply and without supplying draft assessment order.
3. Failure to consider request for personal hearing and reply due to technical issues.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was presented against an order declining to entertain the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Sections 246-A, 254 & 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Single Judge had declined to entertain the petition concerning an Assessment Order and Demand Notice, granting the petitioner time to prefer an appeal instead.

Issue 2:
Contentions were raised that the assessment order was passed without considering the petitioner's replies and without supplying the draft assessment order. The respondents argued that the draft assessment order had been provided to the petitioner. However, the reply dated 24.03.2022 did not explicitly mention non-receipt of the draft assessment order, although a final opinion was not expressed on this matter.

Issue 3:
The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the request for a personal hearing, made through the reply, was not considered due to technical issues with loading PDF documents. It was emphasized that the respondents should have informed the petitioner about these problems to allow remedial steps. The Court noted these issues but ultimately found no grounds for interference with the Single Judge's order, dismissing the writ appeal and granting three weeks to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision not to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act. The allegations of passing the assessment order without considering replies and technical issues with document loading were acknowledged but did not warrant interference with the original order. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to raise all grounds in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing a fair and lawful decision-making process.