2025 (6) TMI 1555 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of the notice issued u/s 148 for reopening the assessment - compliance with the procedural safeguards u/s 148A - alleged credible information received in high risk transactions module - escaped assessment - meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing - violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Since appropriate safeguards have been provided for in section 148A of the said Act and since an opportunity to respond is provided in my view such opportunity should be a meaningful opportunity and not mere rejection of the response filed by the assessee as not being accepted in the light of the information available by them. If the assessing officer was to reject the contention of the petitioner appropriate reasons as to why the same was found to be unacceptable ought to have been quoted. The assessing officer has chosen not to discredit the audited accounts of the petitioner while considering the response. In this context it may be noted that the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgments delivered in the case of Somnath Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (8) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and in the case of Mustafa Huseni Chunwala (supra) has clearly concluded that there should be a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing and not an empty formality. The assessing officer ought not to have dismissed the response filed by the petitioner by holding out the same not to be acceptable without the same being substantiated by reasons. Thus the order impugned and the notice under Section 148 cannot be sustained the same are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer for a fresh decision on merits. The writ petition stands dispose of.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

(a) Whether the Assessing Officer complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before issuing the notice under Section 148 for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18.

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer appropriately considered the response filed by the petitioners to the notice issued under Section 148A(b), including the supporting audited accounts and documentary evidence.

(c) Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act was a reasoned order based on materials on record, or whether it was a mechanical and arbitrary rejection of the petitioners' response.

(d) Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in the proceedings leading to the reopening of assessment.

(e) The scope and effect of relevant judicial precedents concerning the requirement of meaningful opportunity and reasoned orders under Section 148A.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 148A before reopening assessment

The legal framework governing reopening of assessments post the Finance Act 2021 amendments is primarily Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 148A mandates a procedural enquiry prior to issuance of a notice under Section 148, including issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) to the assessee to show cause why reopening is warranted, an opportunity to file a reply under Section 148A(c), and a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) deciding whether reopening is justified.

The Court noted that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 23rd March 2024, highlighting credible information from the Investigation Directorate and the high-risk transactions module suggesting income had escaped assessment. The petitioners filed a detailed response, including audited accounts and documentary evidence denying transactions with the alleged entities.

The Court observed that the Assessing Officer afforded the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and considered their response before passing the order under Section 148A(d). There was no allegation or finding of violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, prima facie, the procedural safeguards of Section 148A were complied with.

Issue (b): Consideration of petitioners' response and documentary evidence

The petitioners contended that the Assessing Officer did not appropriately consider their response, which included audited accounts and bank statements disproving transactions with the entities alleged in the investigation report. They argued that the order under Section 148A(d) was a mechanical rejection without adequate reasoning.

The Assessing Officer's order noted that the petitioners had not submitted bank statements of all accounts to verify various receipts and that the information from the Investigation Directorate could not be fully cross-verified with the meager submissions made. However, the Court found that the Assessing Officer did not provide specific reasons to discredit the petitioners' detailed response or the audited accounts submitted.

The Court emphasized that the opportunity to respond under Section 148A must be meaningful and not a mere formality. The Assessing Officer is required to give cogent reasons if rejecting the assessee's response. The absence of such reasoning rendered the order under Section 148A(d) vulnerable.

Issue (c): Reasoned order versus mechanical rejection under Section 148A(d)

The Court relied on precedents wherein it was held that the Assessing Officer must pass a reasoned order after considering the assessee's response and materials on record. The judgments cited underscored that the reopening process is a quasi-judicial function requiring application of mind and recording of reasons.

In this case, the Assessing Officer's order merely stated that the information from the Investigation Directorate was not fully verifiable and that the petitioners' submissions were insufficient, without elaborating why the audited accounts and other documentary evidence were inadequate. This was held to be a mechanical rejection.

Issue (d): Observance of principles of natural justice

The department contended that the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to be heard and that principles of natural justice were observed. The Court agreed that no violation of natural justice was demonstrated. The petitioners had been served notice, allowed to file a detailed reply, and granted a hearing.

However, the Court clarified that observance of natural justice includes not only hearing but also meaningful consideration of the response and passing of a reasoned order. The failure to provide reasons for rejecting the response amounted to procedural infirmity.

Issue (e): Application of judicial precedents on meaningful opportunity and reasoned orders

The Court referred to the decisions in Somnath Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. and Mustafa Huseni Chunawala, which held that reopening of assessment under Section 148A requires a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order. Mere mechanical dismissal of the assessee's response without reasons is impermissible.

The Court applied these principles to the facts, concluding that the Assessing Officer's order did not meet the standard of a reasoned order contemplated under Section 148A(d).

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"Such opportunity should be a meaningful opportunity and not mere rejection of the response filed by the assessee, as not being accepted in the light of the information available by them. If the assessing officer was to reject the contention of the petitioner, appropriate reasons as to why the same was found to be unacceptable ought to have been quoted."

It was established that the Assessing Officer must consider the assessee's response in a reasoned manner and cannot mechanically reject it without substantiating reasons. The procedural safeguards under Section 148A are mandatory and include the requirement of a reasoned order based on materials on record.

The Court concluded that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notice under Section 148 were unsustainable due to the lack of reasoned consideration of the petitioners' response. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, directing that a meaningful opportunity of hearing be provided and the response be dealt with in a reasoned manner within one month.

The Court also clarified that the petitioners are directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer in producing documents as required, and no costs were imposed.