THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION Nos.21054 and 20920 of 2022 COMMON ORDER :(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY These are two writ petitions where the petitioners/assessees are daughter and father respectively challenging the assessment orders dated 20.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2017-

2018.

2. Heard Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners herein initially filed their income tax return vide e-filing on 19.11.2017 and 31.10.2017 respectively. However, due to oversight, there was an error reflected under the long term capital gains. The petitioners therein filed a revised return on 06.12.2017 and these revised returns were processed and accepted by the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the revised returns submitted by the petitioners were subjected to scrutiny and a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued to which the petitioners immediately responded. Without considering the submissions which the petitioners have raised, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned assessment orders dated 20.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 respectively, both of which are under challenge in the two instant writ petitions.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had raised various other grounds assailing the impugned orders, however, at the first instance she contended that the impugned orders are bad for the simple reason that they are passed relying upon the valuation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation report and its details were not made available to the petitioners while issuing show cause notice and therefore there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that from plain reading of the contents of the impugned orders i.e. the two assessment orders, it would clearly reflect that the show cause notice in both the cases were issued prior to obtaining the Sub-Registrar’s valuation report. Therefore the petitioners were not in a position to give an effective reply to the show cause notices. It was further contended that apart from the fact that it has been obtained subsequent to the show cause notices, these valuation reports were not made available to the petitioners to peruse nor were they permitted or given an opportunity to file their objections if any.

6. The whole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once when the respondent authorities in the course of passing of an order relies upon certain documents which in the instant cases were the Sub-Registrar’s valuation report, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to have made available the Sub-Registrar’s report to the petitioners enabling them to file their response to the said reports. In the absence of which the assessment order remains to be an assessment order which has been passed taking into consideration certain extraneous documents and the contents of which were either not made available to the petitioners nor was it formed part of the show cause notices itself. Thus, the entire action stands vitiated on this ground alone.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Takano vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Another, [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 162] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ordered for quashment of an order which was passed relying upon certain documents which were either not formed part of the show cause notice nor was the same made available to the petitioners.

8. On the previous date of hearing, we had requested the learned Senior Standing Counsel for