The judgment emphasizes the need for effective resolution of taxpayers' grievances, the importance of addressing conflicting assessment orders and non-observance of principles of natural justice, and the availability of statutory remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned Central Government Standing Counsel and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department.

2. A personal affidavit of respondent No.4, namely, Sri Tarun Bajaj, Revenue Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi dated 19.5.2022 has been filed today which is taken on record.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General has referred to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid personal affidavit dated 19.5.2022 and stated that the date of circular in paragraph 10 has been wrongly mentioned as 25.4.2022 instead 23.4.2022 and copy of said circular dated 23.4.2022 has already been filed alongwith the personal affidavit dated 3.5.2022. He further states that the Government’s stand stated in paragraph 10 of the personal affidavit dated 19.5.2022 is clear and, accordingly, the Government shall take all actions against the erring officers.

4. In the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by this court, submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been noted as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two landing question were jointly owned by seven persons. The petitioner herein and the aforesaid Dushyant Bhatiboth were also co-owners of the aforesaid agricultural and which was sold by two separate registered sale deeds. For the same set of reasons proceedings under Section148 of the Act, 1961, were initiated against the petitioner and the aforesaid Dushyant Bhati who is the son of the petitioner. The Assessment Order dated 23.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961, in respect of Dushyant Bhati has been passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, accepting his claim that the land in question was accepted to be an agricultural land situate beyond 8 km. of municipal limits. Thus the disclosed income in there turns for the Assessment Year 2013-14 has been accepted and no tax has been imposed in respect of the sale of the land in question. On the other hand totally contrary view has been taken in the matter of the petitioner vide reassessment order dated 28.03.2022, under Section 147 read with Section144B of the Act, 1961, passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, whereby 1/7th of the consideration in respect of the land in question, belonging to the petitioner, has been assessed as a long term capital gain on the finding that the land in question is not an agricultural land. Thus, on the same set of facts while the respondents have accepted the claim of petitioner's son in respect of the same land and on the other hand in respect of the same land the stand taken by the petitioner has been rejected and the sale proceeds of the agricultural land has been assessed as along term capital gain.”

5. In the order dated 18.04.2022, submission of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been noted, as under:

“Today, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 states that conflicting orders are being passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre and for which steps shall be taken to remove the anomalies.

In view of the statement as aforenoted and also the fact that two conflicting reassessment order have been passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in respect of two co-owners of the same land, we direct the newly impleaded respondent no.4 to look into the matter and file his personal affidavit explaining the state of affairs and the steps being taken by the Government.”

6. In response, a personal affidavit dated 03.05.2019 on behalf of Union of India has been filed by Sri Tarun Bajaj, Revenue Secretary to the Government of India who has stated in paragraph-11 of the affidavit, as under:

“