2023 (8) TMI 1307 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - request personal hearing rejected - HELD THAT - The impugned order is not sustainable, particularly, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has specifically requested for a personal hearing in response to notice issued u/s 148 - That apart, the petitioner has been asked the respondents for a reason to reopen the assessment which was not furnished earlier. It was furnished only after the disposing of the petitioner's objection for reopening the assessment, after the order was passed. The reason for reopening of the assessment also does not make it clear as to whether the amount was deposited in the petitioner's account or in the account of the said M/s. Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Private Limited. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to pass a speaking order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to Assessment order u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Reopening of Assessment:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment order dated 30.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14, contending that scrutiny assessment was completed earlier, and the respondents initiated proceedings u/s 133(1A) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner requested reasons for reopening, which were furnished later, after the objection was disposed of on 12.03.2022.

2. Lack of Clarity in Reasons for Reopening:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of a company, sought a personal hearing and clarification on the reasons for reopening the assessment. The Court noted that the reason provided on 12.03.2022 did not clarify whether a substantial amount was deposited in the petitioner's account or in the company's account. The petitioner's request for a personal hearing was not considered before passing the order.

3. Setting Aside the Impugned Order:
The Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to the lack of clarity in reasons for reopening and the failure to provide a personal hearing despite the petitioner's request. Consequently, the Court set aside the order and remitted the case back to the respondents to pass a speaking order within 45 days, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

4. Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file any additional representation. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasons for reopening assessments and ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. No costs were imposed, and connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed.