2017 (11) TMI 1017 - HC - Income Tax

Dispute Resolution Panel s orders without taking note of the documents despatched to it by courier - violation of the principles of natural justice - Held that - The petitioner was surprised to learn subsequently that on July 24, 2017, itself the Dispute Resolution Panel had passed the impugned orders without taking note of the documents despatched to it by courier. Clearly, the respondent acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, despite the time being granted to the petitioner till July 24, 2017, to submit documents sought by the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Dispute Resolution Panel passed the order on July 24, 2017 itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the petitioner till then. The time given for the petitioner to do so was just four days. This was clearly unreasonable, particularly, since there was an intervening weekend between July 20/24, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of orders passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP) for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 under section 144C of the Income-tax Act 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioner, based in France, challenged draft assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (DRP), and a remand report was received on July 6, 2017. During a hearing on July 20, 2017, the DRP required the petitioner to submit a list of documents by July 24, 2017. Despite the petitioner's request for more time due to obtaining documents from Paris, the DRP declined, stating orders had to be passed by July 31, 2017.

The petitioner tendered some documents on July 24, 2017, which the DRP refused to receive. Subsequently, the petitioner sent more documents by courier and speed post, but the DRP passed orders on July 24, 2017, without considering these documents. The court found the DRP's actions violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was granted until July 24, 2017, to submit documents, but the DRP passed orders prematurely, within just four days, despite a weekend in between.

As a result, the court set aside the orders dated July 24, 2017, and remanded the matters to the DRP for reconsideration from the stage before the impugned orders. The DRP was instructed to consider all documents submitted by the petitioner, including those already with them and any further submissions by August 31, 2017. Fresh orders were to be passed within two weeks thereafter. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and granting reasonable time for submissions in tax assessment proceedings. The court's decision to set aside the premature orders and allow the petitioner to present all relevant documents ensures a fair reconsideration of the case by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2.