2019 (11) TMI 275 - HC - Income Tax

Petitioner with sufficient opportunity or not before passing the order of assessment - HELD THAT - The petitioner had already approached this Court on two occasions, one immediately, on receipt of notice for reopening and another after rejection of the objections raised against the reasons for reopening. Though the petitioner succeeded in her first attempt, where, this Court has directed the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons and consider the objections of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass the order, whereas, in the second attempt, challenging the order rejecting her objection for reopening, has not been successful, as this Court has dismissed the writ petition as stated supra. Therefore, the AO has rightly proceeded to pass the order of assessment. The question now to be answered is whether the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity or not before passing the order of assessment. Perusal of the impugned order of assessment shows that for five occasions, the matter was adjourned for the appearance of the Assessee and however, the Assessee failed to appear and not furnished any material details either in person or through authorized representative. Assessing Officer has completed the assessment and passed the impugned order. When such being the factual position, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order by filing the present writ petition only by stating that she is having all the materials and therefore, she must be permitted to get the matter reopened by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of, only by granting liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of assessment for the assessment year 2013-2014, sufficiency of opportunity provided to the petitioner before passing the order of assessment.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the order of assessment dated 22.01.2019 for the assessment year 2013-2014. The petitioner, an Assessee under the respondent, filed returns of income on 30.12.2014. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment. The petitioner challenged the reopening through a writ petition, which was disposed of by the Court directing the Assessing Officer to provide reasons for reopening and allowing the petitioner to file objections. After objections were filed and rejected, leading to another unsuccessful writ petition, the impugned order of assessment was passed on 22.01.2019.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to furnish objections or details, citing health issues preventing attendance at the hearing. Conversely, the Senior Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to present material details but failed to do so, justifying the assessment order. It was suggested that the petitioner could appeal the order rather than seeking relief through a writ petition.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the case materials, the Court noted that the impugned order stemmed from the reopening of the assessment for the relevant year. Despite previous opportunities for the petitioner to present materials, no details were furnished on five adjourned occasions, leading to the completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer. The Court opined that the petitioner's request to reopen the matter before the Assessing Officer was not justified, as the Appellate Authority could address all contentions as a fact-finding body.

Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to appeal before the Appellate Authority within two weeks. Any such appeal filed within the stipulated period would be considered without regard to the limitation period. The petitioner was also permitted to seek interim relief during the appeal process. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.