TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... too has been ignored. While ignoring, to follow statutory requirements, filing objections and hearing, impugned assessment and demand orders have been passed which in turn would suggest that the respondent has not only breached the principles of natural justice but also breached the procedure which was required to be followed for decision (reassessment). There has been a breach of principles of natural justice and also the procedure, required to be adopted for passing assessment orders on reassessment and demand orders, have not been followed. Therefore, an exceptional case for invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the orders being unsustainable, to ask the petitioner to avail remedies of appeal, matter will unnecessarily get protracted. While holding petitions maintainable, we allow the same and set aside all the impugned assessment and demand orders. A.O. shall furnish reasons for re-opening of assessment of income for the said assessment years so as to enable the petitioner to file objections and after hearing the petitioner, to pass speaking orders then to proceed with the assessment and to pass appropriate orders as shall be warranted. - De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) . 6. It is his contention that four Notices, for respective four assessment years, under Section 148 of the Act have been issued by the A.O. on 10.01.2019 asking the assessee (petitioner) to deliver, within thirty days from the service of notice, returns in the prescribed form for the said assessment years. The said Notices were received by the petitioner on 16.01.2019. Thirty days would expire on 15.02.2019. Within thirty days i.e. on 13.02.2019, the petitioner vide four separate communications all dated 13.02.2019 has submitted that original returns already filed may kindly be considered as valid returns for the purpose. The said four returns have been e-filed again on 13.02.2019 further petitioner requested the A.O. to provide reasons for re-opening the assessments under Section 147 of the Act. 7. On 12.02.2019, A.O. had issued four separate show cause notices for respective assessment years to the petitioner regarding failure to comply with the Notices under Section 148 of the Act and asked the petitioner to show cause by 19.02.2019 as to why prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC of the Act be not initiated. Then on 13.02.2019, four more s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been allowed instead A.O. has passed the assessment and demand orders impugned all dated 20.02.2019. In short, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner has been condemned unheard. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact Notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued on 10.01.2019 and served upon the petitioner on the same day which is quite evident from the copies of the Notices placed on records wherein it is recorded as under:- This document is digitally signed and received by the petitioner on 10.01.2019. However, hard copy has been sent and received by the petitioner on 16.01.2019. Time period of thirty days will commence from 10.01.2019 when the notices were actually served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was required to deliver returns in the prescribed form for the said assessment years which the petitioner has not done within time. Though, the petitioner has done so on 13.02.2019 i.e. beyond thirty days time. Therefore, there was no requirement of supplying reasons to the petitioner for re-opening assessments. Petitioner in fact has relinquished the righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 13.02.2019, A.O. issued four separate show cause notices as to why assessments should not be completed under Section 144 in view of failure to file returns in response to the Notices under Section 148, thereby disabling him (A.O.) from fulfilling its statutory obligations in issuing Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act which too were responded by the petitioner. 17. A.O. on 15.02.2019 has issued Notices under Section 143(2) of the Act which reveal that returns of the petitioner i.e. responses of the petitioner submitted on 13.02.2019 in response to the Notices under Section 148 have been taken note of and the petitioner was asked to verify certain points and for the purpose, petitioner had to appear before the A.O. on 18.02.2019. Furthermore, Notices under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Act were also issued on 15.02.2019 for furnishing certain documents which in fact would mean that period of thirty days reckoning from 10.01.2019, in effect, has been extended by entertaining the response of the petitioner to the Notices under Section 148 dated 10.01.2019. Once it has been done and Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act have been issued, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal: (2014) 1 SCC 603 as under:- 11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh 2 : AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 3 : (1983) 2 SCC 433: (1983) SCC (Tax) 131; Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. 4 : (2003) 2 SCC 107; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case captioned Commissioner of Income-tax 24 v. Trend Electronics reported in [2015] 61 taxman.com 308 (Bombay) as under:- 8. We find that the impugned order merely applies the decision of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Further it also follows the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for it. It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz. Reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object the same before the Assessing Officer. Thus in the absence of reasons being furnished, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
