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 28.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 53,91,630/- and the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent no. 1 has cancelled the assessment order dated 22.12.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are bad in law as the same have been initiated on the change of opinion. He further submits that the respondent no. 1, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee, has passed the impugned order. He further submits that no inquiry as contemplated under section 263 of the INCOME TAX ACT was conducted by the respondent no. 1 before passing the impugned order and the inquiry, if any, was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without any opportunity.

5. He further submits that the Department maintains online order sheet. The signature of the Advocate shown in the manual order order sheet dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure No. CA-8) is entirely different from the signature in the adjournment application (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), on the basis of which the Department is claiming that the petitioner's Advocate appeared on 30.03.2022.

6. He further submits that in 2nd proviso to section 263 of the INCOME TAX ACT , certain conditions have been enumerated for passing an order under section 263 of the INCOME TAX ACT , but none of such conditions has been fulfilled before passing the impugned order. In the impugned order, no finding has been recorded as to how the original order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

7. He further submits that the notice under section 263 of the INCOME TAX ACT was issued on 27.03.2022, which was uploaded on the website on 28.03.2022. The notice of the same was received by the petitioner in the morning, i.e., the date fixed for submitting reply. Therefore, the petitioner moved an adjournment application praying for one week's time for submitting reply, but without considering the adjournment application, the impugned order has been passed on 31.03.2022; wherein, paragra