Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Rajnish Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 62 (1), Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.33920/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8943/2023
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Prashant Meharchandani, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue.
3. In view of the direction that we propose to pass, Mr Meharchandani says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed, and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the court.
4. The record shows that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he is the beneficiary of an accommodation entry provided by one, Mr Sanjay Jain.
5. It is alleged that bogus purchases have been made by the petitioner. The value of the bogus purchases has been pegged at Rs.11,98,577/-.
6. In this context, the petitioner was issued a notice dated 29.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"].
6.1. Via the said notice, the petitioner was granted time to file a response, albeit up until 10.04.2023.
7. The record shows that on 04.04.2023, the petitioner filed a response, although not on merits, but to indicate to the Assessing Officer (AO) that the necessary information/material, which formed
Failure to consider the petitioner's reply can lead to the setting aside of an impugned order and grant liberty for a de novo exercise by the Assessing Officer.
The importance of the petitioner's response to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act and the granting of a personal hearing.
Procedural fairness and compliance with notice requirements are essential in the assessment process under the Income Tax Act.
The court emphasized the importance of correct premise, sharing of relevant information, and clear understanding of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment proceedings.
The principle of natural justice and due process requires the Assessing Officer to provide requisite material and accord personal hearing before carrying out proceedings de novo.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to consider the petitioner's reply in the assessment proceedings amounted to a breach of principles of natural justice, leading....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's reply and according a personal hearing before passing an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Adherence to statutory provisions, including providing adequate time for filing responses, and granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard before passing an order.
The court emphasized the importance of addressing the petitioner's submissions and complying with the time limit for filing the reply, leading to the order for a de novo exercise by the AO.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
