Wp/21054/2022 Of Zareen Sahar Syed v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI [JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI] WRIT PETITION NOs:[2105][4 ][and ][20920 ][ot ][2022] WRIT PETITION[NO: ][210][s4oF ][2022] Between: Zareen Sahar Syed, D/o. [Mahmood Sygd ]9ge! 9!9u!14.ye^ats: [,House,wife]atoilz Greens'view [DR, Algonquin, ][itlinoisl 60102, USA ][.Ad-dress.in lndia]R6. H.tlo.to-a+stlR, [Ftat- ]ub.ooz, [lbrahim ][Heights, ][Chanchalguda,]Hyderabad, TS -500024 ..PETITIONER AND Assistant commissioner of [lncome Tax, Circle ][9( 1)'Hyderabad'] 1 Principal Commissioner of [lncome Tax, Hyderabad-500004.] 2 JAdditional/JoinuDy/ Asst, commissioner [of ][lncome ][tax/ ][lncome ][tax ][officer],N;li;;l [-F;;.leds ][Assessment Centre, ][Delhi ][,Govt ][of ]lnd!a., [MinisJrY of']F,nance, Department of [Revenr.rc ][(CBDT) North Block, New Delhi ][-1 ][10001],N;li;;l [-F;;.leds ][Assessment Centre, ][Delhi ][,Govt ][of ]lnd!a., [MinisJrY of']F,nance, Department of [Revenr.rc ][(CBDT) North Block, New Delhi ][-1 ][10001] ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of [the ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be]pleased to call for records in respect of the [impugned assessment order ][dt.20-]12-2019 vide ITBA/AST/S/143(3)t2019-2O11022799455(1\ [passed ][bv ][the]Assistant commissioner of [lncome ][tax ][circle ][9(1),Hyderabad ][theist ][responderlt]herein as confirmed by the [revision ][order ][dL30-3-2o21 ][vide]revision caseITBA/REV/F/REV7l2O2O-2111031957941(i) [in ]passed by the PrincipalNo.PClT,Hyderabad-4/revision-264/10000009010712021 commissioner of lncome tax [the 2nd ][respondent herein ][and ][the ][impugned ][order]dt.31-12-2021 vide ITBA/PNLIF127ON2O21-2211O38298659(1) [passed ][by ][the] Asst. [commissioner ][of ][lncome ][taxl ][lncome ][tax ][officer ][,]Additronal/Joint/Dy/ National Faceless [Assessment ][centre, ][Delhi ][the ][3rd ][respondent ][herein ][and]issue a writ of [Mandamus ][or ][any olher ][writ ][or order or direction ][in the ][nature ][of]Mandamus declaring [the ][said ][impugned assessment ][order ][d1.20-12-201 ][9 ][vide]ITBA/AST/S/143(3)t2}1g-20t1022799455(1) [passed ][by ][the ][1St ][respondent ][as]confirmed by the [revision ][order ][dt.30-3-2021 ][vide ][ITBA/REV/FiREV7l2O2O]2111031957g4'.t [(',l) ][passed ][in ][revision case No.PClT, Hyderabad-4 /revision-264/]100000090107t2O21 [by ][the ][2nd ][respondent ][and ][the ][imptigned ][order ][dt']31-12-2021 vide [ITBA/PNL/F/270At2021-2211038298659(1) ][passed ][by ][the]Additional/JoinvDy/ [Asst. ][commissioner ][of ][lncome ][tax/ ][lncome ][tax ][officer],National [Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi ][the ][3rd ][respondent ][as ][illegal ][and]contrary to law and [consequently ][direct ][the ][1St ][respondent ][to ][pass ][a ][fresh]assessment order [after ][calling ][a fresh ][representation/ ][the ][return ][of ][income for]the assessmenlyear [2017-2018 from ][the petitioner'] lA NO: 1 OF 2022 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section [151 CPC ][piaying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed [in support of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High ][Court ][may be pleased ][to]Staytheoperationoftheimpugnedassessmentorderdt.2o-12-2o19videITBtuAST/S/14 3(3)t2}1g-20t1022799455(1) [passed ][by the ][Assistant]commissioner of [lncome ][tax ][circle 9(1), Hyderabad ][1st ][respondent as ][confirmed]by the revision order [dt.30-3-2021 ][vide ][ITBA/REW/F/REV7l202O-]2111031957g41(1) [passed ][in ][revision ][Case ][No.PClT,Hyderabad-4/revision]264/100000090107t2021 [by ][the ][Principal ][commissioner ][of ][lncome tax ][the ][2nd]the [impugned order dt.31-12-2021 ][vide ] respondent and 22t1038298659(1) [passed ][by ][the ][Additional/Joint/Dy/Asst. commissioner ][of]lncome tax/ lncome [tax officer ][, ][National Faceless Assessment ][centre, ][Delhi ][the]herein [pending disposal of the ][writ petition']3rd respondent Counsel for the Petitaoner: [M/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA] Counsel for the Respondents: [J.V.PRASAD, Sr. ] WRIT PETITION [:20920 ][0F ][2022] Between: fiilahmood Sved. s/o. Late [Syed ][Ruhullah ][aged about ][69 ][years ][Occ. ][']ausiness, R/o. 512 [Greens ][view ][Di' ][lllinois, ][60102,. ][USA . ][AddreSS ][ln ][lnola]Hb."' H.tlt;. [- ][ro-e--aE,e,rrai- ][t'to.ooz, ][lbiahim ][Heishts ][chanchalguda']Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1.lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][9(1),Hyderabad']2.Principal Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, Hyderabad - 500004]2.Principal Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax, Hyderabad - 500004] 3.Additional/JoinUDy/Asst.commissioneroflncometax/,lncome.taxofficer,N;ii;;;l [F;;"leds ][nssessmeni ][Gnt,", ][Delhi-.Govt ][of ][lndia' ][Minis-try ][of]F#;;; o"pr-iru"i [oinevin,re ][(CBDT) North Block, New Delhi ][-110001],N;ii;;;l [F;;"leds ][nssessmeni ][Gnt,", ][Delhi-.Govt ][of ][lndia' ][Minis-try ][of]F#;;; o"pr-iru"i [oinevin,re ][(CBDT) North Block, New Delhi ][-110001] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article [226 ][of the ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased to call for records [in ][respect ][of ][the ][impugned assessment ][order]vide [ITBA/ASTt$t143(3)12019- 20t1023162671 ][passed ][by ][lncome]dt.26t'l2t2o1g Tax officer Ward [9(1),Hyderabad ][the ][,1st ][respondent herein as confirmed ][by the]revisionorderdt.3ot3l2o2lvideITBA/REvtFtREv7l2o20-21/1031958418(1)inPCIT Hyd-4/Revision-264/100000 [OgO11Ot2O21 ][passed ][by the ][Principal]Commissioneroflncometax,Hyderabadthe2ndrespondenthereinandtheimpugned order [dt.9-2-2022 ][vide ][|TBNPNLIFl2TOAt2O2l-2211039541581(1)]passed by the Additional/Joint/Dy/ [Asst. ][commissioner ][of ][lncome tax/ lncome ][tax]officer ,National Faceless [Assessment ][centre, ][Delhi ][the ][3rd ][respondent ][herein]and issue a writ of [Mandamus ][or ][any other ][writ or order or direction ][in ][the ][nature]of Mandamus declaring [the said ][impugned ][assessment order ][d1.26-12-2019 ][vide]ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20110231626TlpassedbylncorneTaxofficerWardthe'tst [respondent ][as ][confirmed by ][the ][revision ][order ][dt.30-3-]9(1),Hyderabad 2021 vide ITBA/REV/F/REV7l2O2O [21t1031g57g58418(1) ][in ] [Hyd-]4/Revision - [26411OOOOOOgO11Ol2O21 ][passed ][by ][Principal commissioner ][of]lncometax,Hyderabadthe2ndrespondentandtheimpugnedorderdt.9-2-2022thevide ITBA/PNL/F/270At2021-2211039541581(1)passed bY tax/ lncome tax [officer]Additional/JoinVDy/ Asst. [commissioner ][of ][lncome],National [Faceless Assessment ][centre, ][Delhi ][the ][3rd ][respondent ][herein ][as] illegalandcontrarytolawandConsequentlydirectthe'lStrespondenttopassafresh assessment [order after calling ][a ][fresh representation / the return ][of ][income]for Assessmen [year ][2O17 ][- ][20 ][18 ][from ][the petitioner'] IA NO:1OF [2022] illegalandcontrarytolawandConsequentlydirectthe'lStrespondenttopassafresh assessment [order after calling ][a ][fresh representation / the return ][of ][income]for Assessmen [year ][2O17 ][- ][20 ][18 ][from ][the petitioner'] IA NO:1OF [2022] PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit [filed in ][support of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may be pleased to]the [operation ][of ][the ][impugned ][assessment ][order ][dt ][26-12-2019 ][vide]stay ITBtuAST/S/143(3)t2}1g-20t1023162671 [passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Officer]Ward 9(1),Hyderabad [the ][1st respondent herein ][as ][confirmed ][by ][revision order]dt.30-3-2021videITBA/REvtFlREvTl2o2o-21t1031957958418(1)inPClTHyd-4/Revision-264/l0o000og0llol2o2lpassedbythePrincipalCommissioneroflncome tax, [Hyderabad the 2nd respondent herein ][and ][the ][impugned order dt ][9-]passed bY the2-2022 vide [ITBA/PNL/F/270At2O21-2211039541581(1)]lncome tax [officer]AdditionaliJoint/Dy/ [Asst. ][commissioner ][of ][lncome ][tax/],NationalFacelessAssessmentCentre,Delhithe3rdrespondenthereinpendingdisposal of [the writ ]Petition Counsel for the [Petitioner: ][M/s. ] Counsel for [the ][Respondents: ] [J'V'PRASAD' ] The Court [made ][the ][following: ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICI P.SAM KOSI{YAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJIWRIT PETITION Nos.2lO54 and 2O92O of 2O22 COMMON ORDER:[(per ]Hoft'ble Si Justice P.SA.a KosEy) These are two writ petitions where the petitioners/assesseesare daughter and father respectively challenging the assessmentorders dated 20.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondentNo. 1 under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (brieflyreferred to hereinafter as the Act') for the assessment year 2Ol7-20t8. 2. Heard Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax.appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners herein initially filed their income tax returnpetitioners herein initially filed their income tax returninitially filed their income tax returnfiled their income tax returntheir income tax returnincome tax returntax returnreturnvide e-filing on 19. 11.2077 and 31.10.2017 respectively. However,due to oversight, there was arl error reflected under the long termcapital gains. The petitioners therein filed a revised return [on]06.12.2017 and these revised returns were processed and acceptedby the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the [revised returns]submitted by ttre petitioners were [subjected ]to scrutiny and [a]notice under Section I42 (ll of the Act [was ]issued to which the The petitioners herein initially filed their income tax returnpetitioners herein initially filed their income tax returninitially filed their income tax returnfiled their income tax returntheir income tax returnincome tax returntax returnreturn petitioners immediately responded. Without considering thesubmissions which the petitioners have raised, respondent No. Ihas passed the impugned assessment orders d,ated. 20.12.2019 and26.12.2019 respectively, both of which are under chailenge in thetwo instant writ petitions. 4. Though the learned counsel for tlle petitioner had raisedvarious other grounds assailing the impugned orders, however, atthe first instance she contended that the impugned orders are badfor the simple reason that they are passed relying upon thevaluation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar. It is thecontention of the learned counser for the petitioner that thevaluation report and its details were not made available to ttrepetitioners while issuing show cause notice and therefore there wasclear violation of.the principles of natural justice. 4. Though the learned counsel for tlle petitioner had raisedvarious other grounds assailing the impugned orders, however, atthe first instance she contended that the impugned orders are badfor the simple reason that they are passed relying upon thevaluation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar. It is thecontention of the learned counser for the petitioner that thevaluation report and its details were not made available to ttrepetitioners while issuing show cause notice and therefore there wasclear violation of.the principles of natural justice. 5. It was also the contention of the learned co,nser for thepetitioner that from plain reading of the contents of the impugnedorders i.e. the two assessment orders, it would crearry reflect thatthe show cause notice in both the cases were issued prior toobtaining the Sub-Registrar,s valuation report. Therefore thepetitioners were not in a position to give an effective reply to theshow cause notices. It was further contended t.Ilat apart from trrefact that it has been obtained subsequent to the show cause 7 notices, these valuation reports were not made available to the petitioners to peruse nor were they permitted or given anopportunity to frle their objections if any.opportunity to frle their objections if any. 6. The whole contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerwas that once when the respondent aut-horities in the course ofpassing of an order relies upon certain documents which in theinstant cases were the Sub-Registrar's valuation report, it wasincumbent upon the Assessing Offrcer to have made available theSub-Registrar's report to the petitioners enabling them to file theirresponse to ttre said reports. In the absence of which theassessment. order remains to be an assessment order which hasbeen passed taking into consideration certain extraneousdocuments and the contents of which were either not madeavailable to the petitioners nor was it formed part of the showcause notices itself. Thus, the entire action stands vitiated on thisground alone. 7 . l.earned counsel for t]re petitioner heavily relied for t]re petitioner heavily relied t]re petitioner heavily relied petitioner heavily relied upon thethedecision of ttre Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.Takaao vs.Securities and Exchange Board of India aad Anotherr whereinthe Honble Supreme Court had ordered for quashment of al orderwhich was passed relyrng upon certain documents which wereSecurities and Exchange Board of India aad Anotherr whereinthe Honble Supreme Court had ordered for quashment of al orderwhich was passed relyrng upon certain documents which were l.earned counsel for t]re petitioner heavily relied for t]re petitioner heavily relied t]re petitioner heavily relied petitioner heavily relied upon thethe either not formed part of the show cause notice nor was the samemade available to the petitioners. 8. On tJle previous date of hearing, we had requested thelearned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department toseek instructions particurarry on the aspect whether the report ofthe Sub-Registrar was made available to the petitioners arong withthe show cause notices or the contents of Sub_Registrar,s reportbeing reflected in the show cause notice itself. 9. Today when the matter is taken when the matter is taken is taken taken up for hearing, the learnedfor hearing, the learnedlearnedSenior Standing CounseI for lncome Tax Department uponinstructions submits that from the materials made available to himby the Department, it is not reflected that the Sub-Registrar,sreport was made part of the show cause notice or the contents ofwhich were reflected in the show cause notice. Today when the matter is taken when the matter is taken is taken taken up for hearing, the learnedfor hearing, the learnedlearned 9. Today when the matter is taken when the matter is taken is taken taken up for hearing, the learnedfor hearing, the learnedlearnedSenior Standing CounseI for lncome Tax Department uponinstructions submits that from the materials made available to himby the Department, it is not reflected that the Sub-Registrar,sreport was made part of the show cause notice or the contents ofwhich were reflected in the show cause notice. Today when the matter is taken when the matter is taken is taken taken up for hearing, the learnedfor hearing, the learnedlearned 10. It was contended by ttre learned Senior Standing counsel forIncome Tax Department that the petitioners in fact had not raisedthis ground all along and therefore they are estoppeled from raisingthis ground at this belated stage. It was further contended thatupon plain reading of the two show cause notices by itself wouldreveal that the basis for issuance of the said impugned orders wasthe Sub-Registrar,s report; however, the petitioners did not seek for the said report or its contents. Nor did they raise their objectionson the sami at any point of time. 11. Thus from the admitted factual matrix, it stands established that the Sub-Registrar's report was not attached to the show causenotices nor was the contents of the same made available to thepetitioners. Another striking feature which is reflected is the factthat the impugned orders have been [passed ]strictly [based ][upon]valuation report submitted by the Sub-Registrar. 12. Under the given factual matrix of the case, if we now look into the contents of the [judgment ]of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of T.Takaao (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court [has ]dealtwith that issue elaborately where referring to past [precedents ]inparagraph No.37 has held as under: "37 . During the course of the adjudication, [the]fundamental principle is that material which is usedagainst a person must be brought to notice. As this [Court]observed: (Natwar Singh casez, SCC p. 269, [paras ]3O-31) '3O. The right to fair hearing [is ][a ][guaranteed ][right.]Every person before an authority exercising [the]adjudicatory powers has a right to know [tJ.e]evidence to be used against him. This [principle ][is]frrmly established and recognised by this [Court ][in]Dhaleswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [AIR [1955 ] 65 : (1955) 1 SCR 9411 However, [disclosure not]necessarily involves supply of [the material. A ][person]may be allowed to insPect the hle and [take ][notes.]Whatever mode is used, the [fundamental principle]remains that nothing should be used against [the]person which has not been brought to his notice. If_t relevant materia.l is not disclosed to a party, there isprima facie unfairness irrespective of whether thematerial in question arose before, during or aJter thehearing. The law is fairly well settled if prejudicialaJlegations are to be made against a person, he mustbe given particulars of that before hearing so that hecan prepare his defence. However, there are variou sexceptions to this general rule where disclosure ofevidential material might inflict serious harm on theperson directly concerned or other persons or wheredisclosure would be breach of confidence or mightbe injurious to the public interest because it wouldinvolve the revelation of ofhcial secrets, inhibitfrankness of comment and the detection of crime,might make it impossible to obtain certain clauses ofessential information at a-l I in the future (see R. v.Secy. of State for Home Deptt., ex p H [1995 QB 43 :(19941 3 wLR 11 l0 : (1e95) I All ER 479 (CA)I l. 31 . The concept of faimess may require theadjudicating authority to furnish copies of thosedocuments upon which reliance has been placed byhim to issue show-cause nolice requiring the noticeeto explain as to why al inquiry under Section 16 ofthe Act should not be initiated. To this extent, theprinciples of natural justice and concept of fairnessare required to be read into Rule 4( 1) of the Rules.Fair procedure and the principles of natural justiceare in-built into the Rules. A noticee is alwaysentitled to satisfy the adjudicating authority thatthose very documents upon which relialce has beenplaced do not make out even a prima facie caserequiring any further inquiry. In such view of tJlematter, we hold that all such doiuments relied onby the authority are required to be furnished to thenoticee enabling him to show a proper cause as towhy an inquiry should not be held against himthough the Rules do not provide for the same. Sucha fair reading of the provision would not amount tosupplanting the procedure laid down and would inno manner fnrstrate the apparent purpose of thestatute.' (emphasis supplied) 13. Further, in paragraph Nos.50, 51, 53 and 54 of the abovejudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the followingprinciples which for ready reference are reproduced herein under: "5O. The following principles emerge from the abovediscussion: 50.1. A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose thematerial that has been relied upon at the stage ofadjudication. 5O.2. An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not reliedon certain material would not exempt it of its liability todisclose such material if it is releuanf to and has a nerusto the action that is taken by the authority. In allreasonable probability, such material would haveinfluenced the decision reached by ttre authority. 5O.3. Thus, the actual test is whether the material that isrequired to be disclosed is relevant for purpose ofadjudication. If it is, then the principles of natura.l [justice]require its due disclosure. 51. The investigation report forms the materialconsidering which, the Board arrives at a satisfactionregarding whetleer there has been a violation of theregulations. If it is satisfred that there has been aviolation of the regulations, after giving a reasonableopportunity to be heard, the Board is empowered to takeaction according to Regulations 11 and 12. It would notsuffice for the frrst respondent to claim as it did beforethe High Court that it did not rely on the investigationreport. The ipse dixit of the authority that it was notinfluenced by certain material would not suIlice. If thematerial is relevant to and has a nexu s to PART C thestage at which satisfaction is reached by an auttrority,such material would be deemed to be important for thepurpose of adjudication. The written submissions of theBoard clearly state that the frndings of the investigationreport are important for the authority to decide whetherthere are any prima facie grounds to initiate enforcementproceedings under Regulation 1O. The relevant extract ofthe submissions is reproduced below: "It is submitted that Regulation 9 of Regulations require the Investigating Authority [to]submit the report after completion of the [investigation]to the appointing authority. [However, ]the [provision]does not require furnishing of the [report ][to ][the]Noticee. Further, the investigation [report ][is ][merely ][a]culmination of documents which [tlle ]['lnvestigating]authority relies on/come across while conducting theinvestigation and is not a piece of evidence in itself. Itis a report which is necessary for an authority, whoorders an investigation, to decide as to whether there "It is submitted that Regulation 9 of Regulations require the Investigating Authority [to]submit the report after completion of the [investigation]to the appointing authority. [However, ]the [provision]does not require furnishing of the [report ][to ][the]Noticee. Further, the investigation [report ][is ][merely ][a]culmination of documents which [tlle ]['lnvestigating]authority relies on/come across while conducting theinvestigation and is not a piece of evidence in itself. Itis a report which is necessary for an authority, whoorders an investigation, to decide as to whether there are prima-facie grounds to initiate enforcementproceedings or not. Therefore, before the authoritymakes up his mind, he will either himself investigateor direct his subordinates to investigate in the -^it"..It is only after the authority receivei the report of theinvestigation that he can decide as to whetlier actionis called for or not. Therefore, the investigation reportis in the nature of i"t.._a"epart-.i,rt"fcommunications between olficers investigating thematter and authorit5r who can de-cide " arryenforcement action against the entity. The findings recorded in the investigation report againstthe Noticee are brought out in the SCN ana t}le copies ofall the documents that are relied upon by SEBI, whileissuing the SCN are always shared with tire concernea. The present case is no exception." (emphasis "rfpn.ay 53. In Khudiram Das3, a four_Judge Bench of this Courtlai{.aow-n [a two-prong test for ][the ][standard of ][,..i.r,rrr.y,;]firstly, the material must have nexus with the order andsecondly, the material might have influenced the decisiono{ the authority. A Constitution Bench of this Court inKarunakar+ held that the non-disclosure of the relevantinformation is not in itself sullicient to warrant thesetting aside of the order of punishment. It was held ttratin order to set aside the order of punishment, tfreaggrieved person must be able prove tJ.at prejudice hasbeen caused to him due to non-disclosure. To proveprejudice, he must prove that had the material beendisclosed to him the outcome or the punishment wouldhave been different. The test for tlle &tent of di""to"r..1rd B" [corresponding ][remedy ][for ][non-discio"r." ]i"dependent, on the objective thai the disclosure slets toac_hi9ve. Therefore, tJ.e impact of non_disclosure on thereliability of the verdict must also be determinea vis_a_vis, the overa_ll fairness of the proceeding-.- Whiledetermining the reliability of the verdici ana pun'isfrment,the court must also look into the possible'uses of theundisclosed information for purposes anciltary to ttreoutcome, but that which might have impacted theve!diq! I Khudiram Das v. State of W.p., (197S) 2 SCC 8t : 1975 SCC (CnJ 43S a ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4SCC 227 : tgg3 SCC (L&S) I t8; ( / I Khudiram Das v. State of W.p., (197S) 2 SCC 8t : 1975 SCC (CnJ 43S a ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4SCC 227 : tgg3 SCC (L&S) I t8; ( / 54. In Natwar Singhs, it [was ][held ][that ][materia-l ][which ][is]relevant to the subject-matter [of the ][proceedings ][must ][be]disclosed, unless the scheme [of ][the ][statute indicates ][to]the contrar5z. The non-disclosure [of ][such ][material ][is]prima facie arbitrary. A deviation [from ][this ][general rule]was made based on tle stage [of ][the ][proceedings' ][It ][was]held that it is sufficient [to ][disclose ][the materials relied ][on]if it is for the [purpose ][of issuing ][a show ][cause ][notice ][for]initiating inquiry. However, [in ][the present ][case, ][since the]report of the investigating [authority ][under ] [C]Regulation 9 enters into [the ][calculus ][of ][circumstances]borne in mind by the [Board ][in ][arriving at ][its ][satisfaction]under Regulation 10 for [taking ][actions ][as ][specified ][in]Regulations 11 and [12, ]it [would ][be ][contrary ][to ][the]Regutations to assert [that ][the ][investigation ][report ][is]meiely an internal document [of ][which ][a disclosure ][is ][not]warranted. In arty event, [the ][language ][of ][Regulation ][10]makes it clear that the [Board forms ][an opinion ][regarding]the violation of [Regulations ][after ][considering ][the]investigation report [prepared ][under ][Regulation ][9' ][Thus,]the investigation [report has ][to ][be ][duly ][disclosed ][to ][the]noticee. However, the [right ][to ][disclosure ][is ][not ][absolute']It needs to be determined [if ][tl:e ][non-disclosure ][of ][the]investigative report [is ][protected ][by any of the ][exceptions]to the rule." 14. From the aforesaid [facts and ][circumstances, ][admittedly ][the]Sub-Registrar's report [was ][not ][made available ][to ][the ][petitioners]along with the [show cause notices ][or ][at a ][subsequent ][stage ][at all']If we look into the [principles ][laid ][down ][in ][tJle ][aforesaid ][judgment]by the Hon'ble Supreme [Court and ][the ][facts ][of the instant ][writ]petitions, admittedly two show [cause notices were ][issued ][to ][the]petitioners but in either of the [two, ][a ][copy ][of ][the ][Sub-Registrar's]report was not enclosed. [In Writ ][Petition ][No.2O920 ][of ][2022 whete]the assessee is the father, [neither was ][the report ][of the ][Sub-]made [available ][nor ][was ][the ][contents ][of ][which ][reflected ][in]Registrar s Natwar Singh v. prrectir of Enforcement, [(2010) ][13 SCE ][255] the show cause notice and to make things bad when the impugnedassessment order had been passed, heavy reliance has been placedupon the Sub-Registrar's report. Thus, from the ratio laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Takano (supra), we donot. have any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that theimpugned orders smacks arbitrariness on the part of therespondent authorities in passing the same. 15. Another striking feature what is reflected from theproceedings is the fact that the show cause notices issued and thefinal assessment orders passed at a very short period of time gap.This also compels this Bench to draw an interference against therespondent authorities in showing undue haste in passing of theassessment orders. In Writ Petition No.21054 of 2022, the showcause notice was issued on 14.12.2019 and the assessment orderwas passed on 20.12.2019 i.e. in less than a period of six (06) days.Likewise, in Writ Petition No.20920 of 2022, the show cause noticewas issued on 2I.12.2019, the date of appearance for personalhearing was given on 23.12.2019 and the final assessment orderhas been passed on 26.12.2O19 which itself establishes that in lessthan around frve (05) days, the entire proceedings had beeninitiated and concluded which therefore vitiates the whole order. ( ry ( ry 16. In the given factual [matrix, ][the ][impugTled ][orders ][to ][the]aforesaid extent [of having ][passed ][without ][providing ][a ][coPy ][on ][the]basis of which the [proceedings were ][initiated, ][deserves ][to ][be ][and]are accordingly set [aside/quashed. Since ][we ][a-re ][interdicting ][the]impugned orders only [on the ground of ][the ][same ][being ][violative of]the principles of natural [justice, ][it ][would ][be ][left ][open ][for ][the]respondent authorities to [take appropriate decision ][in ][accordance]with the law. 17. With the above observations, [the ][two ][writ ][petitions]areallowed. There shall be [no ][order ][as ][to ][costs. ][Consequently,]miscellaneous [petitions ][pending ][if ][any, ][shall ][stand ][closed.] SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT {r" //TRUE COPYII To, 1.The Assistant commissioner [of lncome tax, Circle ][9(1), ][Hyderabad']2.The Principal Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax' ][Hyderabad-500004']2.The Principal Commissioner [of lncome ][Tax' ][Hyderabad-500004'] 3.TheAdditional/JoinUDy/Asst,commissioneroflncometax/lncometax-officer,N;t#;i F;;6ss [Ass'essmehi ][centre, ]Qelhi [,Gqv.t ][of ][lndia' ][Ivlinistry.of ]^.F';;;A'D.-p;;eni [ot ][nerenue ][paol ][North ][Block, ][New Delhi ][-1 ][10001]N;t#;i F;;6ss [Ass'essmehi ][centre, ]Qelhi [,Gqv.t ][of ][lndia' ][Ivlinistry.of ]^.F';;;A'D.-p;;eni [ot ][nerenue ][paol ][North ][Block, ][New Delhi ][-1 ][10001]4.The lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][9(1 ]),Hyderabad.5.One CC to M/s. VEDULA [CHITRALEKHA, Advocate ] 5.One CC to M/s. VEDULA [CHITRALEKHA, Advocate ] 6.one cc to sitlJ.V.PRASAD, [SC FOR INCOME TAX ] 7.Two CD CopiesBSR LS b HIGH COURT DATED: 1110312024 o[s][ 1CE ][STa][ fc]€J(io2 [rlAR ]2024;L)tD6,SPATCh'gO COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.21054 and 20920 of 2022 ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS trtcp('@.x