2021 (9) TMI 871 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment - Whether Assessment order passed without application of mind and on incorrect reasons - as per AO assessee not responded to any of the notices u/s 142(1) and the petitioner was not traceable at any of the addresses, and therefore, the order has been passed based on material which has been gathered and other information available on record - HELD THAT - Petitioner had received a notice dated 22nd September 2019 under Section 143(2), to which there is no reference in the impugned order, seeking further details. Petitioner filed its reply dated 7th October 2019 to this notice as per the evidence available in the e-proceedings, response acknowledgment of the department. There is no reference to this reply in the impugned order. Thereafter petitioner received another notice dated 17th January 2020 under Section 142(1) of the Act to which according to petitioner, a reply dated 23rd January 2020 has been filed. It is Respondent s case that it was filed only on 30th April 2021 and not on 23rd January 2020. Petitioner later received a notice dated 12th February 2020 under Section 142(1) followed by a reminder dated 14th December 2020. Admittedly, no response was filed by petitioner to these two notices. Petitioner thereafter received a notice dated 7th April 2021 to which a partial response has been filed on 30th April 2021. In view of this background, for the Assessing Officer to say that the notices issued by respondents under Section 142(1) of the Act were left unheeded or the assessee was unresponsive is not correct. For respondent to also say that the verification unit for physical service of notice reported that petitioner could not be located in the three addresses also is not acceptable because petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the address mentioned in Exh.R-1 to the reply at page 376 is the registered office address of the company. It is stated in the report that it is the residential apartment and the address was found but details of the specified person could not be ascertained also is unacceptable. Next address is a commercial address belonging to petitioner from where petitioner was carrying on his business and this address can also be found in the return filed, but for the Income-tax Inspector who filed a report to say that address found, but details of the specified person could not be ascertained again is unacceptable. There is a third address in which service has been attempted, but petitioner says that address does not belong to petitioner and it is so mentioned in the rejoinder. AO to say that no response was received from the petitioner or petitioner could not be traced is certainly not acceptable to the Court. Therefore, the assessment order dated 30th April 2021 is quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning assessment order for assessment year 2018-19 on grounds of lack of application of mind and incorrect reasons.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30th April 2021 for the assessment year 2018-19, alleging that it was passed without proper consideration and on incorrect grounds. The Assessing Officer relied on the fact that the petitioner did not respond to various notices, leading to a best judgment assessment under section 144. However, the petitioner had responded to earlier notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), which were not acknowledged in the impugned order. The petitioner's claim that responses were filed to subsequent notices was disputed by the Respondent. The court found discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's claim that the petitioner was unresponsive and untraceable, especially considering the petitioner's registered office address and business premises. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed unacceptable and set aside, along with consequential notices under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The court noted that the Assessing Officer's assertion of non-response and untraceability of the petitioner was unfounded, given the petitioner's documented interactions with tax authorities. The petitioner's company status under the Companies Act, 1956, and the clarity of its registered and business addresses contradicted the Assessing Officer's claims. The court found the verification unit's reports on the petitioner's location unsatisfactory, as they failed to account for the petitioner's established addresses. Additionally, attempts to serve notices at an address disclaimed by the petitioner further weakened the Respondent's position. As a result, the court quashed the assessment order and associated notices, emphasizing the need for a fair reassessment process.

The court annulled the assessment order dated 30th April 2021 and directed a fresh adjudication, preserving the petitioner's rights and arguments. The petitioner committed to submitting all necessary documents within two weeks, addressing any outstanding requirements from previous notices. Failure to comply would allow the Assessing Officer to proceed based on existing responses but necessitated a personal hearing for the petitioner. Notably, the court refrained from commenting on the case's merits, focusing solely on procedural irregularities. The petition was disposed of, ensuring a fair and thorough reassessment process for the petitioner.