TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and went ahead to pass the order u/s. 263 of the Act on the very same date, i.e. 23/03/2021. The impugned order, we hold, has not only has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice but is also in violation of the procedure laid down u/s. 263 of the Act which specifically requires the authorities to pass the order u/s. 263 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after making such enquiry as is deemed necessary. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT has neither afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee but by not taking note of the reply, he has not even made necessary enquiries in the present case before passing the impugned order. The order passed, therefore, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and in view of the various decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us, the only recourse is to set aside the same. We have no hesitation, therefore, in holding that the impugned order passed in the present case is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice having been passed in haste without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without even dealin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding even when the AO had conducted thorough enquiries and also most importantly the Pr. CIT failed to carry our any enquiry himself and also failed to demonstrate which most necessary enquiry the Ld. AO failed to carry out. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that inadequate inquiry does not amount to lack of inquiry so as to assume valid jurisdiction u/s. 263. 1.4 The Worthy Pr. CIT has erred in holding that the agricultural income declared by the appellant has been accepted by the Ld. AO without making worthwhile enquiries even when necessary enquiry was conducted by the Ld. AO and enough material was on record of Ld. AO to accept the said agricultural income. 1.5 The Worthy Pr. CIT has erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte u/s. 263 even when a detailed comprehensive reply was e-filed by the appellant on the day of hearing itself and having failed to consider the same, this shows the prejudiced and biased mind of the respondent and therefore, the impugned order u/s. 263 deserves to be quashed. 1.6 The Worthy Pr. CIT issued show cause notice u/s. 263 which was duly e-replied by the appellant but the same was not considered before passin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned assessment year in the present case is assessment year 2016-17. The assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) sought to be revised was dated 31.10.2018. As per Section 263 sub-section (2) the limitation to revise this order expired on completion of two years from the end of the Financial Year in which the order sought to be revised was passed i.e. 31.03.2020 but on account of the pandemic of Covid-2019 occurring in the month of February-March, 2020, this limitation was extended by the CBDT by one year and accordingly, the order u/s. 263 in the present case could be passed upto 31.03.2021. There is no dispute vis- -vis. these facts. The first Show Cause Notice assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee dated 16.03.2021 via ITBA Portal. No physical notice was issued to the assessee. As per the said notice, the assessee was to respond to the same on 19.03.2021. Since the assessee failed to respond to this notice, another notice was issued through the ITBA Portal on 19.03.2021 fixing the case on 23.03.2021 on which date the order u/s. 263 was passed. These facts emanate from the order of the PCIT itself. The ld. counsel for the assessee has placed the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and Sunday in between, literally tantamounting to give only two days to the assessee to collect information and respond to the queries raised. That the next notice also hardly afforded any opportunity to the assessee again giving a time period of only four days. That despite the same, the assessee responded to the said notice within whatever available time and also apprised the PCIT of the reason for non responding to the first notice and also that adequate opportunity ought to have granted to him in the present proceedings. He pointed out that despite the reply filed by the assessee on the ITBA Portal and e-mail sent to the PCIT informing him of the reply filed, the PCIT still chose to ignore the same and passed the order, thus denying both adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also not considering the reply filed by the assessee before passing the revisionary order. 8. The aforestated facts have not been disputed by the Revenue and we see no reason but to agree with the ld. counsel for the assessee in the backdrop of the aforestated facts that not only was the assessee denied opportunity of hearing in the present case but also that order was passed without cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not supported with any document so as to enable him to respond to the same. In such circumstances, it was held that there was gross breach of the principles of natural justice on account of inadequate time given to respond and also on account of the fact that the assessee was not confronted with documents so as to respond to the same and the Apex Court, therefore, considering the statutory limit within which the appropriate authority was to act in the said case and noting his failure to act in conformity with the principles of natural justice held that the matter could not be remanded to the appropriate authority and must be set aside. 8.2. In the case of TulsiTracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee was found to have never been issued or served any notice u/s. 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that the Commissioner who had issued order u/s. 263 ought to have been fully satisfied that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice u/s. 263 of the Act and to explain the situation concerning such facts and considering the limitation for the passing of order u/s. 263, the Hon'ble Court held that no useful purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
