2022 (6) TMI 1301 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s 148A(b) - No discussion on objection case of the petitioner that the impugned order is bad in law - HELD THAT - On perusal of the aforesaid order u/s 148A(d) no reasoning or any discussion on the contention raised by the petitioner in its aforesaid objection. Advocate appearing for the respondent could not justify the aforesaid impugned order by his submission. Considering the submission of the parties the aforesaid impugned order u/s 148A(d) and subsequent notice under Section 148 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the AO concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order particularly by taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order. Before passing any fresh order u/s 148A(d) petitioner or its authorised representative shall be given opportunity of hearing.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2018-2019.

The judgment by the Calcutta High Court pertains to a writ petition challenging an impugned order dated 7th April, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the order was bad in law, non-speaking, and perverse as it did not address the objections raised in response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 22nd March, 2022. The court observed that the impugned order lacked reasoning or discussion on the petitioner's contentions, and the respondent's advocate failed to justify the order. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order within eight weeks, considering the petitioner's objections and providing an opportunity for a hearing. The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law.

The judgment highlights the significance of due process and the requirement for a reasoned and speaking order in matters of taxation. It underscores the duty of the Assessing Officer to address objections raised by taxpayers and provide a fair opportunity for them to be heard. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh decision demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural fairness and ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the law. The judgment serves as a reminder of the principles of natural justice and the importance of thorough consideration of objections raised by taxpayers in tax assessment proceedings.