2025 (7) TMI 257 - HC - Income Tax

Legality and validity of certain notices issued by the competent authority u/s 142 144 and 144B and 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B - Scope of term prejudice - as argued no adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and as such the assessment order has been passed in violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice - show cause notice was issued on 13th March 2023 at around 20 02 hours granting time to respond only until 18 00 hours on 17th March 2023. HELD THAT - Undoubtedly a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was adopted by the respondents which contemplated the grant of a minimum response time of seven days from the date of issuance of a show cause notice. Hon ble Division Bench in its judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Kolkata 2025 (5) TMI 1336 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that such SOP does not constitute a statutory rule regulation or mandatory directive. Rather it serves merely as a guiding tool intended to guide the Assessing Officer in forming satisfaction under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The Hon ble Division Bench further observed that the learned Tribunal had erred by elevating the status of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which is intended merely to guide the Assessing Officer to be taken as a rule or regulation which would be binding on the assessee. Therefore a plain reading of the judgment makes it clear that the SOP cannot be construed as a rule or statute having the force of law; it is merely a set of guidelines framed for administrative purposes. A useful reference may be made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Ors. vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh 2020 (10) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that the principles of natural justice are inherently flexible and cannot be applied through any rigid or straitjacket formula. Their application must be guided by the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon ble Supreme Court further observed that a mere technical breach of natural justice does not by itself vitiate an order. Rather the validity of such an order must be assessed on the touchstone of prejudice. The ultimate and determinative test is whether the person concerned has suffered actual prejudice or has been denied a fair hearing. Consequently a bald plea of violation of natural justice is insufficient unless the person asserting it is able to demonstrate that he has in fact suffered prejudice as a result. In the absence of such prejudice no interference with the order is warranted. In the present case as noted earlier notices under Sections 148 148A(b) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act were duly issued to the petitioner. The petitioner received all such notices but failed to submit any reply thereto despite having sought and obtained adjournments on multiple occasions in relation to the show cause notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. There is no material on record to support the contention that the petitioner suffered prejudice merely because a response time of only four days was granted instead of seven days as suggested in the Standard Operating Procedure. On the contrary it appears that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to respond and avail the remedies available under law to challenge the reassessment order but failed to do so.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the issuance of show cause notices under Sections 142, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, and the subsequent assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, were legally valid and complied with the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable and adequate opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, particularly in light of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) requiring a minimum response time of seven days.

3. The legal status and enforceability of the SOP formulated by the respondents in relation to the issuance of show cause notices and response timelines.

4. The distinction between assessment and reassessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act, and whether the procedural safeguards under Sections 147, 148, and 148A were properly followed before reassessment.

5. Whether any prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to alleged procedural irregularities, and if so, whether such prejudice warrants interference with the assessment order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notices and Assessment Order under Income-tax Act Provisions

The legal framework governing the issuance of notices and reassessment is primarily found in Sections 142, 144, 144B, 147, 148, and 148A of the Income-tax Act. Section 147 permits reassessment if the assessing officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Section 148A prescribes procedural safeguards including issuance of a show cause notice before initiating reassessment under Section 148.

The respondents contended that all procedural requirements were complied with, including issuance of notices under Sections 142(1), 148A(b), and 148, and that the petitioner was given opportunities to respond but failed to do so. The petitioner challenged the legality of these notices and the reassessment order, alleging violation of natural justice principles due to inadequate response time.

The Court examined the statutory provisions and found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated following the prescribed procedure, including enquiry under Section 148A and issuance of relevant notices. The petitioner's failure to respond despite multiple notices and adjournments was noted as significant.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity to Respond and the SOP on Response Time

The petitioner's primary grievance was that the show cause notice was issued late on 13th March 2023, granting only four days to respond instead of the seven days mandated by the SOP. The petitioner relied on precedents holding that less than seven days' notice is legally unsustainable and prejudicial.

However, the Court referred to a Division Bench decision which clarified that the SOP is not a statutory rule or regulation but merely an administrative guideline intended to assist the Assessing Officer. The SOP does not confer any enforceable right on the assessee. Thus, non-compliance with the SOP does not automatically invalidate the assessment order.

The Court also invoked the Supreme Court's ruling that principles of natural justice are flexible and must be applied in light of actual prejudice suffered. Mere technical breach without demonstrable prejudice does not vitiate an order.

In the present case, the petitioner received all notices and had multiple opportunities, including adjournments, but did not submit any substantive reply. The Court found no material to show that the petitioner suffered prejudice due to the shorter response time. The petitioner's failure to avail the opportunities afforded was a critical factor.

3. Distinction Between Assessment and Reassessment and Compliance with Procedural Safeguards

The respondents emphasized the fundamental distinction between initial assessment and reassessment. The reassessment under Section 147 requires satisfaction that income has escaped assessment, followed by procedural steps under Sections 148A and 148.

The Court accepted that the reassessment was initiated on sufficient grounds, and the prescribed procedural safeguards were followed. The petitioner's failure to file a fresh return or respond to show cause notices was noted as justifying the reassessment and the eventual passing of the assessment order.

4. Prejudice and Natural Justice Principles

The Court reiterated that natural justice principles require a fair hearing but are not to be applied rigidly. The decisive test is whether the person has suffered actual prejudice or denial of a fair hearing.

Since the petitioner failed to respond despite multiple notices and adjournments, the Court held that no actual prejudice was caused by the allegedly shortened response period. The petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case but did not do so.

5. Enforceability of the SOP and Its Role in Assessment Proceedings

The Court clarified that the SOP is a guiding framework for departmental officers and does not have the force of law. It cannot be elevated to a statutory mandate binding on the assessee. Non-compliance with the SOP, therefore, does not automatically invalidate the reassessment order.

Significant Holdings:

"The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) adopted by the respondents... does not constitute a statutory rule, regulation, or mandatory directive. Rather, it serves merely as a guiding tool intended to guide the Assessing Officer in forming satisfaction under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act."

"The principles of natural justice are inherently flexible and cannot be applied through any rigid or straitjacket formula... a mere technical breach of natural justice does not, by itself, vitiate an order. Rather, the validity of such an order must be assessed on the touchstone of 'prejudice.'"

"In the absence of such prejudice, no interference with the order is warranted."

"There is no material on record to support the contention that the petitioner suffered prejudice merely because a response time of only four days was granted instead of seven days, as suggested in the Standard Operating Procedure."

"The reassessment order passed by the authority under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act is an appealable order, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

The Court concluded that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and conducted in accordance with statutory provisions and procedural safeguards. The petitioner was not denied natural justice as no actual prejudice was demonstrated. The SOP's timelines are administrative guidelines and non-compliance does not invalidate the proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the notices and assessment order was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue remedies through appeal.