2021 (8) TMI 441 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - Non grant of personal hearing - HELD THAT - In response to the notice which petitioner had received under sub- Section 1 of Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, petitioner had submitted its statement of affairs as on 31st March 2018 to which is annexed the balance sheet and one of the liabilities mentioned is loan - We feel if a personal hearing had been granted, petitioner could have cleared this doubt of the assessing officer. In the circumstances, we hereby set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority, who shall after giving a personal hearing to petitioner, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, pass such orders as he deems fit in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to forward a copy of this order through the e-filing process and also by hand delivery/speed post/courier/e-mail. We hasten to add that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.

Issues:
Petitioner seeks writ orders to quash assessment order and consequential Notice of Demand, alleging denial of personal hearing. Respondent argues no prejudice caused due to non-production of documents by petitioner. Court inclined to interfere, set aside order, and remand for fresh assessment after granting personal hearing. Respondent failed to consider petitioner's request for personal hearing despite offering it. Assessing officer relied on lack of loan account statement to assess income. Court sets aside order, remands for fresh assessment after personal hearing.

Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Grievance and Relief Sought:
The petitioner sought a writ order to quash the assessment order dated 19th April 2021 and the consequential Notice of Demand, alleging the denial of a personal hearing despite requesting one in response to the show cause notice. The petitioner also sought writs in the nature of mandamus and prohibition.

2. Court's Decision to Interfere:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the denial of a personal hearing and found merit in the argument that the assessing authority did not provide any reason for not granting the personal hearing. Consequently, the court decided to interfere in the matter, setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh orders after granting the petitioner an opportunity to personally explain, following the procedure under the E-assessment scheme.

3. Respondent's Argument and Court's Disagreement:
The respondent argued that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as certain documents were not produced as requested. However, the court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing the petitioner's responses to the show cause notices and the significance of a personal hearing in clarifying doubts raised by the assessing officer.

4. Failure to Consider Request for Personal Hearing:
Despite the respondent's offer to grant a personal hearing and the petitioner's explicit request for the same, the assessing authority proceeded to pass the assessment order without conducting a personal hearing. This failure to consider the petitioner's request for a personal hearing was a crucial aspect that led the court to set aside the order and remand the matter for a fresh assessment after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

5. Assessing Officer's Reliance on Lack of Documentation:
The assessing officer based the assessment on the petitioner's failure to submit the statement of the loan account and relevant documents for verifying the loan amount claimed. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted its statement of affairs mentioning the loan, but the lack of a loan account statement led to misunderstandings that could have been clarified through a personal hearing.

6. Court's Order for Fresh Assessment with Personal Hearing:
In light of the circumstances and the failure to grant a personal hearing, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the adjudicating authority to conduct a fresh assessment after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The court emphasized the importance of the assessing officer having a clear understanding of the petitioner's submissions, which could be achieved through a personal hearing.

7. Conclusion and Disposal of the Petition:
The court disposed of the petition by setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders within six weeks after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case, ensuring a fair and unbiased reconsideration of the assessment.

← Previous Next →