Natural justice principles are flexible, requiring case-specific application, and a prima facie case of income escapement justifies reopening assessments.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148A(d) and Section 148 - Challenge to impugned order and notice for reopening assessment.

(B) Natural Justice - Principles applied flexibly, depending on facts.

(C) Allegation of fabricated documents to prove income escapement examined.

(D) A prima facie case of income escapement observed. (Paras 1-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the order for reopening assessment, claiming lack of reasonable time and reliance on illegible documents. The petitioner’s supplier denied executing transactions, raising questions about the documents used against the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the matter warranted further proceedings and that the notice under Section 148 was justified based on prima facie evidence.

Issues: Whether the impugned order was passed without reasonable time and whether natural justice was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that natural justice principles are flexible and stressed that adjudicating factual disputes is not the role of writ proceedings.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order under income tax act (Para 1)
2. procedure for objections to notices (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. responses from respondents on document legitimacy (Para 5 , 6)
4. application of principles of natural justice (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. dismissal of writ petition (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

C.M.Nos.29717/2022 & 29719/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.10307/2022 & C.M.No.29718/2022

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th June, 2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and notice dated 30th June, 2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to reopen the income tax portal of the Petitioner Company and allow it three working days to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 20th May, 2022 and to restrain the Respondents from continuing any proceedings in pursuance to impugned order dated 29th June, 2022 and impugned notice dated 30th June, 2022 during the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order has been passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 148A(d) of the Act without giving the Petitioner a reasonable time of two weeks to file its objection, as directed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Aggarwal, 2022 SCC Online SC 543: and as requested by the Petitioner vide its letter dated 25th May, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the documents annexed to the notice dated 20th May, 2022, which were relied upon by Respondent No.2 for alleging `escapement of income' by the Petitioner Company, were completely illegible and unreadable. He states that the Petitioner filed a preliminary reply dated 25th May, 2022 requesting for legible copies of the documents. He states that Respondent No.2, after almost a month, vide its email dated 18th June, 2022 provided legible/readable copies of all the said relied upon documents along with various additional documents.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner Company was under a bona fide belief that, in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court as well as its request letter dated 25th May, 2022, it would be granted two weeks time from the date of providing the documents i.e. till 02nd July, 2022 for responding to the notice and thereafter would be provided an opportunity of being heard. However, he states that the Petitioner Company received an email from the Respondent No.2 intimating that the impugned order has already been passed on 29th June, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

5. Per contra, Mr.Puneet Rai, learned standing counsel for the Respondents-Revenue, who appears on advance notice, states that at the initial stage itself, legible copies of the documents were provided to the Petitioner by the Assessing Officer. He states that out of abundant precaution, another set of clear and legible copies of the documents were provided to the Petitioner on 18th June, 2022.

6. Mr.Rai further states that the documents annexed by the Petitioner in the present writ petition at Annexure P-10 clearly shows that the bills relied upon by the Petitioner are fabricated inasmuch as they do not even mention the address and mobile number of the supplier. He states that even in the transportation bills, the consignor address has not been mentioned.

7. It is settled law that `principle of natural justice is no unruly horse and no lurking land mine' as held by Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines Vs. Ramjee, (1997) 2 SCC 256. In fact, in M/s S. Tikara Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1691, it has been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be petrified or fitted