Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Sukhmeet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 28 1 – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.34884/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 9168/2023 & CM Appl.34883/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that although a notice dated 23.02.2023 was served on the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"], she failed to respond to the same.
3. It appears that, as a result, the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to pass an assessment order dated 21.03.2023, under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
4. The case set up against the petitioner is that she had entered into a high value transaction concerning an immovable property, qua which there was no visibility, since the petitioner had not filed her income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) in issue, i.e., AY 2016-17.
5. The petitioner claims that the AO has committed an error, inasmuch as the transaction qua the same property has been taken into account twice over.
5.1. Furthermore, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a 50% owner of the subject immovable property
The court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Officer issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, granting sufficient time to respond and furnish relevant documents before passing an assess....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Assessing Officer to consider all relevant evidence before making an assessment under the Income Tax Act.
Violation of principles of natural justice in not granting the petitioner enough opportunity to furnish an explanation in defense of the charge levelled against him.
A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued beyond four years without proper examination of material facts is invalid and lacks jurisdiction.
The importance of timely assertion and the requirement for verification and personal hearing before passing an assessment order under the Income Tax Act.
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.
Compliance with natural justice principles under Section 144B is mandatory, necessitating personal hearing opportunities when variances in assessment orders are proposed.
The failure to grant a personal hearing as mandated under the Income Tax Act invalidates the assessment order, ensuring due process for taxpayers.
Compliance with procedural requirements and the right to a fair hearing are essential in proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessing Officer must provide adequate reasoning for reassessment actions and ensure compliance with natural justice principles.
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
