Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
M. L. Chains – Appellant
Versus
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Shri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 cancelling the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner deals in the business of gold bars and gold ornaments. On 27.02.2019, a notice under section 142(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 23.08.2019, a show cause notice under section 272-A(1)(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner, through its representative, appeared and submitted relevant documents before the authority and the respondent no. 2, after considering all the details, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the INCOME TAX ACT on a total return income of Rs. 53,91,630/-. On 27.03.2022, a notice under section 263 of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was e-filed on 28.
Valid service of notice under section 148 is essential for jurisdiction; failure to serve invalidates the assessment order.
The court held that failure to provide a personal hearing as mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act renders the assessment order invalid, violating principles of natural justice.
The court established that failure to respond within specified timelines does not constitute a violation of natural justice in tax reassessment proceedings.
The notice under Section 263 does not need to be signed by the Commissioner to be valid, as long as it serves the purpose of providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The assessment order issued without proper notice and outside statutory limitation is invalid, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that an Assessing Officer must wait for the Dispute Resolution Panel's directions before passing a final assessment order, even if objections are not communicated timely, emphasizing ....
Active participation in reassessment proceedings without objecting to the impugned notice may lead to dismissal of a challenge to the final assessment order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
