2023 (12) TMI 1129 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - petitioner has failed to support documentary evidence regarding the purchase of immovable property and the post office deposit - HELD THAT - Petitioner is categorical that he has not participated in any sale transaction or availed the benefit of the deposit with the Post Office in the subject assessment year to be served with notice under Section 148A b of the IT Act. Secondly , the petitioner asserts that because of his peculiar circumstances he had no knowledge of the notice and as such, he has not filed any response to the notice issued u/s148A b . Thirdly , when a show cause notice under Section 142 1 of the IT Act is issued, the petitioner has responded asking for details and an opportunity of hearing. This Court must further observe that the necessary details will be provided when notice under Section 148A b of the IT Act is issued, but the notice under Section 148A b of the IT Act in the present case does not contain all the necessary details, and it could be that such information could not be sought for at the stage of Section 144B of the IT Act but an opportunity of hearing is contemplated at this stage under these provisions. The petitioner has not received the notice under Section 148A b of the IT Act and an opportunity of personal hearing is not extended before the impugned assessment order, and therefore, this Court must opine that there is a definite lack of opportunity and failure to comply with the requirements of putting the assessee on notice for reasons to commence proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act. As such, there must be interference quashing the assessment order dated 13.03.2023 and the adjudication order dated 28.03.2022 u/s 148A d and restoring the proceedings to the stage where the petitioner could show cause against adjudication under Section 148A d - Further, the second respondent must be called upon to furnish to the petitioner information such as the details of the sale deed and the deposits with the postal department upon receipt of a certified copy of this order with due opportunity to the petitioner to file a response. The petition is allowed in part. The impugned assessment order and the consequential computation, demand and penalty notices are quashed. The adjudication order under Section 148A d of the IT Act is also quashed and the proceedings restored for reconsideration.The second respondent shall furnish the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act before proceeding further consequent to this order.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order, computation sheet, demand notice, penalty notices, adjudication order, and consequential notice under the Income Tax Act, alleging lack of due opportunity.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner contested the assessment order and adjudication order under Section 148A[d], citing lack of opportunity. The respondent issued a notice under Section 148A[b] regarding unfiled income tax return for a specific year, mentioning TDS on property purchase and post office deposits. The petitioner, a senior citizen, requested details and a personal hearing due to unfamiliarity with technology. The assessment order concluded lack of evidence on property purchase and post office deposit, based on no response from the petitioner.

Contentions of the Parties:
The petitioner's counsel asserted that the petitioner did not engage in property transactions or post office deposits during the relevant year, requesting details for the notice issued under Section 148A[b]. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner's lack of response to the initial notice led to the adjudication order, and while acknowledging the lack of a personal hearing opportunity, emphasized the importance of requesting information upon receiving the notice.

Court Observations and Decision:
The Court noted the petitioner's denial of involvement in the transactions mentioned in the notice under Section 148A[b], attributing the lack of response to the petitioner's circumstances and lack of detailed information in the notice. It highlighted the necessity of providing details and an opportunity of hearing at the appropriate stages of the proceedings. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not adequately informed and granted partial relief by quashing the assessment and adjudication orders, instructing the respondent to provide reasons for the proceedings and allowing the petitioner to respond accordingly within a reasonable timeframe.