9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 751 - HC - Income TaxValidity of assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.r. 144 - breach of principles of natural justice -Petitioner was accorded shorter period to respond to notices - HELD THAT - The petitioner drew the Assessing Officer s attention to the fact that via notice dated 16.03.2023, 30 days time had been granted to file the return.Unfortunately for the petitioner, the AO passed the impugned assessment orders dated 28.03.2023, without granting the time sought for by the petitioner. Although representations were made, thereafter, by the petitioner for each of the AYs on 12.04.2023, to refrain from initiating penalty proceedings, there has been no movement in the matter. Given this position, we are of the view that the AO had put the petitioner on an extremely tight leash. AO expected the petitioner to gather information for six AYs within two days, which, by any yardstick, was not a practical timeframe. We are inclined to set aside the impugned assessment orders. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The judgment concerns challenges to assessment orders and notices issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for multiple Assessment Years (AYs) based on alleged breach of principles of natural justice. Assessment Year 2014-15 (W.P.(C)No.6756/2023): The petitioner challenged an assessment order and notices issued under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15. The petitioner argued that there was a breach of principles of natural justice due to the short time granted to respond to the notices. The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not granted the requested time for response, leading to an impractical timeframe for compliance. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment orders and the consequential demand notices. Assessment Year 2019-20 (W.P.(C)No.6782/2023): Similar to the previous issue, the petitioner contested an assessment order and notices issued for AY 2019-20 under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Act. The court observed that the AO had imposed unrealistic time constraints on the petitioner, not considering the practicality of gathering information for multiple AYs within the given timeframe. As a result, the court quashed the assessment orders and demand notices, granting liberty to the AO to conduct a fresh exercise from a specific stage. Assessment Year 2017-18 (W.P.(C)No.6829/2023): In this case, the petitioner challenged assessment orders and notices for AY 2017-18 issued under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Act. The court noted that the AO had placed undue pressure on the petitioner by expecting compliance within an unreasonably short period. Consequently, the court set aside the assessment orders and directed the AO to provide necessary information and grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative. Assessment Year 2018-19 (W.P.(C)No.6831/2023): The petitioner contested assessment orders and notices for AY 2018-19 under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Act, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The court found that the AO had not considered the practical challenges faced by the petitioner in complying with the short timelines set for response. Therefore, the court annulled the assessment orders and associated demand notices. Assessment Year 2015-16 (W.P.(C)No.6833/2023): For AY 2015-16, the petitioner challenged assessment orders and notices under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Act, citing a breach of natural justice principles. The court agreed that the AO's imposition of tight deadlines without granting requested time for response was unfair. Consequently, the court invalidated the assessment orders and demand notices, allowing the AO to restart the process from a specific stage. Assessment Year 2016-17 (W.P.(C)No.6836/2023): The petitioner contested assessment orders and notices for AY 2016-17 under Sections 153C and 142(1) of the Act, arguing that principles of natural justice were violated. The court found that the AO had unreasonably expected the petitioner to comply with short deadlines, disregarding the practical difficulties involved. As a result, the court quashed the assessment orders and demand notices, instructing the AO to conduct a fresh assessment process from a particular stage. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
