2021 (4) TMI 650 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - purchase of a landed property - Before the first respondent petitioner did not appear and as a result, the first respondent was constrained to dismiss the petitioner's appeal and confirm the assessment order passed by the original authority - HELD THAT - The petitioner had produced the copy of the sale deed dated 07.03.2013 before this Court. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner had purchased the property on 07.03.2013 for a sum of ₹ 84,80,000/- . But then the impugned order proceeded on the premise that it is worth of ₹ 8,46,00,000/-. If only the petitioner had produced the materials before the authority concerned, he would not be finding himself in the present position. In any event in the interest of justice and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and since the petitioner had placed prima facie material to show that the impugned order is incorrect, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent will grant one more hearing to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, dismissal of appeal by first respondent, incorrect assessment order, production of relevant records, remitting the matter to the first respondent for a fresh hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an assessee registered under the Income Tax Act who omitted to include the purchase of a landed property in his income tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14. Subsequently, the assessing officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and passed an assessment order. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the first respondent due to non-appearance, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order.

The petitioner presented a sale deed showing the actual purchase price of the property, which differed significantly from the amount considered in the assessment order. The court noted that if the petitioner had provided these materials earlier, the situation could have been different. In the interest of justice and considering the prima facie material presented by the petitioner, the court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition. The matter was remitted back to the first respondent for a fresh hearing.

The court directed the first respondent to grant the petitioner another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of producing all relevant records to support his case. The first respondent was instructed to review all materials before disposing of the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were awarded and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.