The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice in tax reassessment processes, ensuring that parties have adequate time and opportunity to respond to allegations.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the re-assessment orders dated 26th March, 2022 issued under Section 143(3)/147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [`the Act'] as well as the demand notices issued under Section 156 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Respondents have not taken into consideration the material on record and the replies and documents filed by the Petitioner. He states that the Show Cause notices proposing to make an addition of Rs.8 crores and Rs.26,42,15,857/- for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively were issued on 23rd March, 2022 at 23:59 hours and the Petitioner was given time up till 23:59 hours on 25th March, 2022 only i.e. less than forty eight hours to file replies to the Show cause notices. Consequently, according to him, the Petitioner was effectively denied her right to reply to the Show Cause notices. In support of his submissions, he relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Vodafone India Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013)40 taxmann.com 545 (Bom.).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the Petitioner did not come to know of the show cause notice, as she did not get the real time alert, as is mandatorily required under Section 144B(7)(ii) of the Act and so she was not able to file her reply within time or request for a personal hearing in accordance with Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act.

4. He states that the Respondents merely relied on the information received from the Multiyear NMS data and did not conduct any independent investigation while passing the impugned orders. He further states that the Respondents did not take into consideration the explanation provided by the Petitioner in her replies that all the investments in the mutual funds that were sought to be added in the income of the Petitioner was actually made by her husband namely Mr.Ashwani Talwar, who is regularly assessed to tax with the Assessing Officer Ward 7(4), Delhi and had been regularly filing his income tax returns for the last more than two decades showing considerable income. He points out that had the authorities made due inquiries, they would have got to know that the investments in the mutual funds were `Joint Party Transactions' and were made by Mr.Ashwani Talwar, husband of the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner was simply a second holder of the securities.

5. However, a perusal of the impugned assessment order reveals that though the mutual funds are held in the joint name of the assessee and her husband, yet the payments of the same have been made from the bank accounts held jointly by the assessee and her husband in one of bank accounts the first name is that of the petitioner-assessee. It is also alleged in the impugned order that, "the source of deposit in all these bank accounts does not indicate whether such deposits has been made by her husband or by the assessee, out of their independent source of income". Consequently, the dispute involved in the present matters is essentially factual in nature.

6. Moreover, appeals against the impugned assessment orders have already been filed under Section 246A by the Petitioner before the appropriate Authority. Consequently, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate if the petitioner raises all her contentions and submissions before the Appellate Authority.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petitions along with applications stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all her contentions and submissions before the Assessing Officer. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.