2023 (12) TMI 503 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of faceless assessment proceedings - as argued petitioner did not receive the draft assessment order and notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that all other notices issued to the petitioner during the faceless assessment proceedings were served on him and he filed responses to the said notices. It would be hard to believe that the petitioner did not receive the draft assessment order and notice. Violation of principles of natural justice - As argued Sufficient time to the petitioner for filing reply/objection to the draft assessment order not provided assessee was afforded only three days time to file objection to the draft assessment order - Submission of the petitioner is also unsustainable, because violation of principles of natural justice would come only if the petitioner asked for extension of time to file reply/objection to the draft assessment order dated 24.9.2021, Ext.P11(b), or the notice dated 23.9.2021 and the authority denied such request for further time for filing reply/objection. In the present case, the petitioner did not choose to file reply to the notice dated 23.9.2021, nor objection to the draft assessment order. Therefore, the alleged violation of principles of natural justice does not exist. Thus it would be hard to believe that the petitioner did not receive draft assessment order and therefore, the decision in the case of Ellathkandi Khaleel Ahammad 2022 (8) TMI 139 - KERALA HIGH COURT is of no use to the petitioner in the present case. No substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice and draft assessment order were not served on the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the assessment order, penalty notices, and the application of the Faceless Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2013-14.

Challenge to Assessment Order and Penalty Notices:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order, penalty notices, and the application of the Faceless Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that technical glitches in the faceless system of assessment proceedings affected the fairness of the process. The petitioner argued that due to these glitches, they did not receive the draft assessment order and were not given sufficient time to respond to the notice. The petitioner claimed a violation of principles of natural justice, citing lack of opportunity to respond adequately. The petitioner relied on previous court decisions to support their contentions.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The court considered both parties' submissions and found that all other notices during the faceless assessment proceedings were served to the petitioner, raising doubts about the petitioner's claim of not receiving the draft assessment order and notice. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that there was insufficient time to respond, stating that the petitioner did not request an extension or file objections despite the opportunity. The court distinguished previous cases cited by the petitioner, emphasizing that in the present case, the petitioner did not actively engage in the process or seek additional time to respond.

Dismissal of Writ Petition and Alternative Remedy:
The court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's claim that the notice and draft assessment order were not served. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could file an appeal against the assessment order within a specified period. The court directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal promptly, it should be considered without limitations. Any pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition were also dismissed.