The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing before concluding the assessment, in accordance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the writ petitioner on the file of the first respondent to quash the impugned order, dated 30.03.2022 passed under Section 263 r.w.s 144 and 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITBA / AST / S / 144 / 2021-22 / 1042099472(1) and consequently direct the first respondent to complete the fresh re-assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 after granting reasonable/sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the writ petitioner on the file of the first respondent to quash the impugned order, dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 263 r.w.s 144 and 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITBA / AST / S / 144 / 2021-22 / 1041928002(1) and consequently direct the first respondent to complete the fresh re-assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 after granting reasonable/sufficient opportunity of hearing.)

1. The petitioner, who is an assesee posted with an assessment orders, dated 30.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. These orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice, challenged the same. The petitioner filed his return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 under consideration on 01.12.2013 and 13.06.2016 by reporting the taxable total income at Rs. 25,91,970/- and Rs.13,87,910/- respectively. The said assessment was reopened vide issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, dated 16.02.2017 and 13.01.2017. The petitioner filed response to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act on 20.07.2017 electronically.

2. During the course of the original re-assessment proceedings, the petitioner submitted replies and documents on various dates. Thereafter, reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 143 (3) of the Act was framed on 12.09.2017 accepting the return of income. The third respondent assumed jurisdiction for revisional proceedings by way of issuing a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act, dated 17.02.2021 and 02.03.2021 respectively.

3. The petitioner filed his objections vide letter, dated 01.03.2021 and 12.03.2021 to the third respondent. Consequently, the order under Section 263 of the IT Act passed vide order dated, 12.03.2021 and 22.03.2021. The revision order under Section 263 of the IT Act is now subject matter of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.314 and 315 of 2022, pending adjudication. This being so, petitioner received a notice under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act, dated 14.02.2022 electronically through ITBA portal calling for details as per annexure and the same was followed by issuance of another notice under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act, dated 15.03.2022 calling for details as per earlier notice on or before 19.03.2022.

4. The show cause notice under Section 144 of the IT Act, dated 19.03.2022 issued for completing the assessment on the basis of the materials available on record. The show cause notice along with draft assessment order issued on 27.03.2022 and 25.03.2022 through the ITBA portal seeking response on or before 28.03.2022 by 23.59 hours. The first respondent completed the assessment on 30.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 ex-parte without affording, effective opportunity of hearing the petitioner. The petitioner already filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal challenging the determination of taxable total income of Rs.9,91,17,260/- and Rs. 10,81,55,110/- for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Thus, without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply, is not proper. The respondents failed to follow the procedure envisaged under Section 144 B of the IT Act and passed the impugned order.

5. Further, the Commissioner alr