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.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

CM No. 16066/2021

1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner curing the deficiencies referred to in the captioned application within three days of this Court resuming its normal functioning.

CM No. 16067/2021

2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5234/2021, CM No. 16065/2021

3. Issue notice.

3.1. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, who appears on advance notice, accepts service on behalf of the respondents.

3.2. In view of the order that we propose to pass, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra says, she does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, and that she will proceed on the basis of the record presently made available with the Court.

4. The instant writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 22.04.2021, passed by respondent no. 1, under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (in short "the Act"). The impugned assessment order concerns the assessment year (in short `AY') 2017-2018. Furthermore, the petitioner also seeks setting aside of the notice of demand of even date, i.e., 22.04.2021, issued under Section 156 of the Act, as well as the notice of the same date issued for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 270A and 271 AAC (1) of the Act.

4.1. Briefly, the grievance articulated and the assertions made on the behalf of the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The petitioner claims that the return of income for the concerned AY, i.e., 2017-2018 was filed on 30.11.2017, and that thereupon, a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued by respondent no. 2. This notice, according to the petitioner, was issued on 26.09.2018.

(ii) The said notice, the petitioner claims, was followed by a notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, on 16.10.2019. The petitioner avers that a reply to the said notice was filed, via the designated e-portal, on 07.12.2019.

(iii) Evidently, the petitioner's case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (in short `TPO') under Section 92 CA (1) of the Act.

(iii)(a) Resultantly, the assessment proceedings were kept in abeyance, for the period spanning between December 2019 and January 2021.

(iv) It appears that, thereafter, notices were once again issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act, between 15.02.2021 and 07.04.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Amritsar (in short `DC'IT). The petitioner claims that, in response to the said notices, requisite information and documents sought for were submitted, as on the earlier occasion, via the e-portal.

(v) It is also averred by the petitioner that a show-cause notice, along with the draft assessment order dated 19.04.2021, was served on the petitioner by respondent no. 1, whereby, the petitioner was called upon to file its response by 23:59 hours on 21.04.2021.

(vi) It is the petitioner's case that the said show cause notice was received by it via e-mail on 20.04.2021 at 03:06 hours. Since the time for compliance was short, the petitioner, it appears, filed an application via the e-portal, seeking a day's adjournment, i.e., till 22.04.2021. The petitioner claims that no response was received by it with respect to the request for adjournment.

(vii) The petitioner avers that respondent no. 1, as noticed above, passed the impugned assessment order on 22.04.2021. The petitioner also states that since it had not received a response qua the request for adjournment, the objections to the aforementioned show-cause notice were filed on 22.04.2021 at 15.22 hours.

4.2. In effect, based on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner claims that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice. It is the petitioner's case that the objectio