The court emphasized the necessity of fair opportunity in assessment procedures, allowing a remand for reconsideration despite prior non-participation.

ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Vardini Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is made against the Impugned Assessment Order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent and consequential order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, originally return was filed on 17.02.2019 for the assessment year 2018-19. Earlier, the petitioner had one PAN Number, which was wrongly issued under the status of "Non Juridical Person". Subsequently, the petitioner applied for another PAN Number, which was rightly issued under the status of "Society". Due to change of PAN Number, the petitioner was not aware of the notices issued in the Old PAN Number and therefore, the petitioner did not file any reply to the notices and participate in the proceedings. However, without hearing it, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned assessment order dated 29.09.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, as against the impugned order of assessment, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 264 before the 1^st respondent. However, the same was rejected on the ground that, the petitioner had failed to participate in the proceedings and provide suitable reply before the Assessing Officer, hence, the petition under Section 264 cannot be considered.

5. The Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, initially, the petitioner had one PAN Number in the name of its Trust and subsequently, the Trust was converted into a Society and therefore, a new PAN Number was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had all the transactions in the Old PAN Number i.e. in the name of Trust. Hence, the respondent had used Old PAN Number to all the transactions.

6. Further, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel would submit that, when the petitioner has claimed that, they have been regularly filing return of income under New PAN Number from the Assessment Year 2015-16, none of the documents were produced before the Assessing Officer to prove the said fact, hence, the petition under Section 264 was rejected by the Assessing Officer. However, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel would fairly submit that, in the event, the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of cost which is to be fixed by this Court, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered with heavy cost.

7. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. In the present case, the petition under Section 264 was rejected for the reason that, the petitioner had failed to file any reply or produce any documentary evidences to demonstrate the case before the Assessing Officer. The reason given by the petitioner for not participating in the assessment proceedings was because of change in the name of the Management. According to the petitioner, due to change in the name of the management of the society, the notices were served in the Old PAN Number instead of New PAN Number, hence, he was not aware of the notices and therefore, he could not participate in the proceedings.

9. This Court is of the considered opinion that, merely because of non participation of the assessment proceedings, the valuable right of the petitioner would not be deprived of to prosecute a case under Section 264 . Initially, the petitioner's society had been registered as a