Hasina Nuruddin Jetpurwala v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxinternational Tax 2- 1 -2 Delhi And Ors

$~26 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 11128/2022 & CM APPLs.32656-32657/2022 HASINA NURUDDIN JETPURWALA..... Petitioner Through:Mr. Sankalp Malik and Ms. RudraliPatil and Mr. Sanket Bora, AdvocatesPatil and Mr. Sanket Bora, Advocates versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAX 2- 1 -2 DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. EashaKadian, Advocates for Revenue.Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Advocate forR-3/UOI % Date of Decision: 27[th]July, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment orderdated 25[th]May, 2022 for Financial Year 2016-2017 and all notices as wellas actions taken in pursuance thereto by the Respondents. 2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that between 31[st]March,2022 and 9[th]February, 2022, the Respondents had issued notices to the W.P.(C) 11128/2022 3.He contends that the Respondents had erred in passing the impugnedassessment order without considering the submissions filed by the Petitionerin her detailed reply within the time given by the draft assessment orderunder Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) dated 20[th]March, 2022. He states that the assessee duly complied with the said notice,despite there being no valid service of notices under Sections 148 and142(1) as well as draft assessment order.He emphasises that theAssessment order is a verbatim copy of the draft assessment order ignoringthe exhaustive reply filed by the Petitioner. 4.Learned counsel for the Petitioner further states that even otherwisethe reasons given in the impugned order are factually incorrect as neitheranypropertywaspurchasedbytheassesseenoranamountofRs.12,60,23,440/- was paid as consideration in the said year. 5.He lastly states that the Petitioner was not obligated to follow theroute of filing the objections before the Dispute Resolution Mechanism(‘DRP’) and had in her reply dated 16[th]April, 2022 clarified that she will notbe filing any objections before the DRP and would be filing objectionsbefore the Assessing Officer and would file an appeal before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] in the event she isaggrieved. 6.Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenueaccepts notice. He states that Petitioner would have full opportunity to urgeall her contentions and submissions before the appellate authority i.e.CIT(A). W.P.(C) 11128/2022 7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the viewthat, in the present instance, there has been a violation of the principles ofnatural justice. The replies filed by the Petitioner though available on theportal of the Income Tax Department were not considered by the AssessingOfficer before passing the impugned order. On this short ground alone theassessment order dated 25[th]May, 2022 for the Financial Year 2016-17,demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act and penalty notice issuedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are set aside and the matter is remandedback to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision within twelve weeks afterconsidering the replies filed by the Petitioner. With the aforesaid direction,the present writ petition along with pending applications stands disposed of. MANMOHAN, J JULY 27, 2022AS MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J W.P.(C) 11128/2022