IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Girish Kathpalia, JJ.
Sanskriti Exim Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6756 of 2023 & CM Nos.26417-18 of 2023, W.P.(C) 6782 of 2023 & CM Nos.26495-96 of 2023, P.(C) 6829 of 2023 & CM Nos.26751-52 of 2023, P.(C) 6831 of 2023 & CM Nos.26758-59 of 2023, P.(C) 6833 of 2023 & CM Nos.26763-64 of 2023, W.P.(C) 6836 of 2023 & CM Nos.26770-71 of 2023
Decided On : 19-05-2023
Assessment Orders - Income Tax - Section 153C, Section 144, Section 156, Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The court set aside the impugned assessment orders and consequential demand notices due to breach of principles of natural justice. The AO was expected the petitioner to gather information for six AYs within two days, which was not practical given the 30 days granted to file the return of income. The AO was directed to carry out a fresh exercise and provide the information and material to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged six separate assessment orders and notices of demand issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for different Assessment Years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a breach of principles of natural justice as the AO expected the petitioner to gather information for six AYs within two days, which was not practical given the 30 days granted to file the return of income.
Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice, practical timeframe for gathering information for assessment orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the impugned assessment orders and consequential demand notices due to the breach of principles of natural justice and directed the AO to carry out a fresh exercise and provide the information and material to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court ordered the setting aside of the impugned assessment orders and consequential demand notices, and directed the AO to carry out a fresh exercise and provide the information and material to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM No.26417/2023 in W.P.(C) 6756/2023
CM No.26495/2023 in W.P.(C) 6782/2023
CM No.26751/2023 in W.P.(C) 6829/2023
CM No.26758/2023 in W.P.(C) 6831/2023
CM No.26763/2023 in W.P.(C) 6833/2023
CM No.26770/2023 in W.P.(C) 6836/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6756/2023 & CM No.26418/2023
W.P.(C) 6782/2023 & CM No.26496/2023
W.P.(C) 6829/2023 & CM No.26752/2023
W.P.(C) 6831/2023 & CM No.26759/2023
W.P.(C) 6833/2023 & CM No.26764/2023
W.P.(C) 6836/2023 & CM No.26771/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
3. Given the order that we propose to pass, Mr Chandra says that counter-affidavit(s) need not be filed and he will argue the above-captioned writ petitions based on the record presently available to the court.
3.1. Thus, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself.
4. These writ petitions concern Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 [W.P.(C)No.6756/2023], AY 2019-20 [W.P.(C)No.6782/2023], AY 2017-18 [W.P.(C)No.6829/2023], AY 2018-19 [W.P.(C)No.6831/2023], AY 2015-16 [W.P.(C)No.6833/2023] and AY 2016-17 [W.P.(C)No.6836/2023].
5. The petitioner in these writ petitions has laid a challenge to six (6) separate assessment orders of even date, i.e., 28.03.2023 passed under Section 153C, read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"].
5.1. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the notices of demand dated 28.03.2023 issued under Section 156 of the Act and notices dated 20.03.2023 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, in each of the writ petitions.
6. The short ground on which the petitioner seeks to assail the aforementioned assessment orders and notices is that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice.
7. The record shows that in each of the above-captioned cases, the petitioner was issued six (6) separate notices of even date, i.e., 16.03.2023 under Section 153C of the Act. Via these notices, the petitioner was given leave to file its return of income within 30 days of the date of service of the notice.
8. The said notices were followed by another set of notices which were also six (6) in number. These notices were dated 20.03.2023 and were issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Via these notices, the petitioner was required to file the relevant documents/information within two (2) days, i.e., by 22.03.2023.
8.1. In view of the fact that period accorded to the petitioner was extremely short, the petitioner asked for 30 days to respond to the said notice(s).
8.2. In this context, the petitioner drew the Assessing Officer's (AO) attention to the fact that via notice dated 16.03.2023, 30 days' time had been granted to file the return.
9. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the AO passed the impugned assessment orders dated 28.03.2023, without granting the time sought for by the petitioner.
10. Although representations were made, thereafter, by the petitioner for each of the AYs on 12.04.2023, to refrain from initiating penalty proceedings, there has been no movement in the matter.
11. Given this position, we are of the view that the AO had put the petitioner on an extremely tight leash. The AO expected the petitioner to gather information for six AYs within two days, which, by any yardstick, was not a practical timeframe.
11.1. This is especially so, as the AO, while issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act had granted 30 days to the petitioner to file the return of income concerning the AYs in issue.
12. To enable the petitioner to file the return of income, clearly, it would have to gather documents and thereafter comply with the directions issued by the AO.
13. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to set aside the impugned assessment orders. It is ordered accordingly.
14. Given th
Breach of principles of natural justice and practical timeframe for gathering information for assessment orders.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and setting practical timeframes for compliance with assessment notices under the In....
Violation of principles of natural justice and failure to adhere to the timeline given in the notice led to the setting aside of the impugned assessment orders.
A breach of natural justice occurs when an assessment order is finalized before the noticee's response deadline, invalidating the order.
Failure to inform the petitioner about the decision on their request for accommodation constituted a breach of principles of natural justice, warranting the setting aside of the assessment order and ....
Violation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and breach of natural justice warrant setting aside assessment order and notices, and necessitate a de novo exercise by the Assessing Officer.
The denial of personal hearing sought by the petitioner constituted a breach of principles of natural justice, leading to the setting aside of the order and notice.
The central legal point established is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including providing sufficient time for the party to respond to notices.
The assessment order was set aside due to breach of natural justice, specifically failure to consider the petitioner's objections filed before the order was made.
Failure to adhere to the directions in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit, which led to the quashing of the impugned notices and order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.