Reassessment Order Quashed for Failure to Consider Assessee’s Timely Reply.
Issue: Is a reassessment order liable to be quashed if the Assessing Officer fails to consider the assessee’s detailed reply to a show-cause notice proposing variations to income, particularly when the assessee had also requested that the reassessment proceedings be stayed pending the disposal of objections raised against the reopening of the assessment?
Facts:
- For the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a specific total income.
- Subsequently, the assessee’s case was reopened through the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, asking why proposed variations should not be made and the reassessment completed accordingly.
- The assessee submitted a detailed reply to this show-cause notice within the stipulated time.
- In their reply, the assessee also specifically requested the Assessing Officer not to proceed further with the reassessment until the objections raised against the reopening of the assessment were duly considered and disposed of.
- Despite receiving the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the reassessment order and also issued a consequential demand notice.
- Notably, the Assessing Officer’s reassessment order stated that the assessee had not filed any reply to the show-cause notice.
Decision: The court held in favor of the assessee and quashed and set aside the impugned reassessment order. The court found that the Assessing Officer had clearly failed to consider the detailed reply submitted by the assessee within the given timeframe.
Key Takeaways:
- It is a fundamental principle of natural justice and a requirement of fair assessment proceedings that the Assessing Officer must duly consider the assessee’s response to a show-cause notice before finalizing a reassessment order.
- An assessment order that is passed without considering the assessee’s timely submissions is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
- The Assessing Officer cannot claim non-receipt of a reply if the assessee has evidence of its submission within the stipulated period.
- Ignoring the assessee’s request to defer reassessment proceedings pending the disposal of objections against the reopening, especially when a timely and detailed reply has been filed, indicates a failure to adhere to proper procedure.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Hasmukhbhai Girdharilal Chopra
v.
National Faceless Assessment Centre, Govt. of India
BHARGAV D. KARIA and D.N. Ray, JJ.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8210 of 2022
MARCH 11, 2025
Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. and Ms. Vaibhavi K Parikh for the Petitioner. Varun K. Patel, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Bhargav D. Karia, J.- Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel with learned advocate Mr.Dev D. Patel for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed challenging the Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and demand notice of even date issued under Section 156 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2022.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :
3.1. During the year under consideration, the petitioner was engaged in the business of wholesale as well as retail business of gold and silver bullion and jewellery. The Petitioner filed his return of income on 07.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.8,07,529/-.
3.2. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was reopened by issuance of notice dated 31.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act. The respondent vide notice dated 24.12.2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, called upon the petitioner to furnish various details and the reasons for reopening were also supplied vide said notice.
3.3. The respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 24.03.2022 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why proposed variation should not be made and assessment should not be completed accordingly. The petitioner was granted time till 23:59 hours of 27.03.2022 for furnishing reply to the show-cause notice.
3.4. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 27.03.2022, the petitioner furnished detailed reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice and vide letter dated 28.03.2022, also raised objections against reopening and requested the respondent not to proceed further with reassessment proceedings till the objections raised by the Petitioner against reopening are disposed of. However, the respondent passed the impugned Assessment Order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act determining total income of the petitioner at Rs. 177,36,21,153/- as against the returned income of Rs. 19,85,850/- and consequential demand notice was also issued for the year under consideration. The petitioner being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said Assessment Order, preferred these petitions before this Court.
4.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani for the petitioner submitted that the show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2022 was issued granting time till 23.59 hours on 27th March, 2022 for proposed variation. It was submitted that though time of only two days was granted to the petitioner to file reply, the petitioner was able to file reply on 27th March, 2022.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani invited the attention of the Court to the impugned Assessment Order wherein, the Assessing Officer has stated that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2022. It was therefore submitted that without consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned Assessment Order is passed in hurry.
4.3. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has also raised the objections on 28th March, 2022 for re-opening of the assessment, however, the same is also not disposed of by any speaking order passed by the respondent-Assessing Officer.
5. The above submissions are not refuted by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent.
6. In view of the above stated undisputed fact with regard to granting of only two days’ time to file the reply to the show-cause notice as well as non-consideration of the reply in the impugned Assessment Order by categorically making a statement that the petitioner failed to file any reply in response to the show-cause notice, the Assessment Order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. We are therefore of the opinion that, without entering into merits of the matter, only on the aforesaid ground of nonconsideration of the reply which was already filed by the petitioner on 27th March, 2022, the impugned Assessment Order dated 29th March, 2022 as well as the demand notice of even date are required to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh de-novo order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim-relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.