Wtax/468/2023 Of Rama Intellectual And Research Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Others

Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 468 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rama Intellectual And Research Private LimitedRespondent :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Ashish BansalCounsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan,Ashish Agrawal Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief JusticeHon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Bansal, learned counsel for the petitionerand Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the assessment order dated06.03.2023 passed by the Faceless Assessment Authority in thecase of the petitioner for A.Y. 2018-19 under Section 147 readwith Section 144 and 144-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Also, challenge has beenraised to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. At thesame time, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, withrespect to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, thepetitioner had first filed rectification application before theAssessing Authority. On that application being rejected, thepetitioner has approached the Revisional Authority. Revision isstill pending. 3. In view of the above, we are not going into the question ofvalidity of re-initiation of the proceedings as that issue isengaging the attention of the statutory authority. For the limitedconsideration, we propose to offer in the present proceedings, itis therefore assumed for the time being, the re-assessmentproceedings were validly initiated. However, that is only atentative observation necessary to be made at this stage toconsider the other submissions being advanced by learnedcounsel for the petitioner. However, that issue would abide bythe outcome of the revision proceeding. 4. On the issue of validity of re-assessment order dated06.03.2023, it has been strenuously urged, the above order waspreceded by four notices dated 30.03.2022 (issued underSection 148 of the Act), 12.10.2022 and 22.12.2022 [issuedunder Section 142(1) of the Act]. The last notice dated01.02.2023 was a regular show-cause-notice issued for fixingdate 15.02.2023. 5. Referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition, ithas been shown to us, the petitioner had submitted not less thantwo replies dated 31.10.2022 (in response to the notice dated12.10.2022) and 03.03.2023 (in response to the notice dated22.12.2022 and 01.02.2023). Submission of such replies cannotbe disputed as prima facie the acknowledgement itself disclosesdue filing of such replies. 6. In that fact, it has been submitted, the Assessing Authorityhas acted with complete non-application of mind inasmuch asthe assessment order contains a clear recital that the noticeissued to the petitioner remained unresponded. Even whilemaking discussion over the material issues, the AssessingAuthority has not adverted to the reply tendered by thepetitioner. Thus, it does appear, the assessment order is ex parteto the extent it does not take note of the petitioner's replies anddoes not offer any consideration of the objection made by thepetitioner. 7. Requirement of natural justice is not met by taking on recordreplies filed by the petitioner but it is the consideration of thereply on merits before reaching any conclusion that must bedone to show due compliance of that rule. In the present facts,as noted above, that pre-requirement of law was given acomplete go-by, may be due to inadvertence. 8. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states, at present he cannot establish from the record that dueconsideration had been made by the Assessing Authority to thereplies filed by the assessee. 7. Requirement of natural justice is not met by taking on recordreplies filed by the petitioner but it is the consideration of thereply on merits before reaching any conclusion that must bedone to show due compliance of that rule. In the present facts,as noted above, that pre-requirement of law was given acomplete go-by, may be due to inadvertence. 8. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states, at present he cannot establish from the record that dueconsideration had been made by the Assessing Authority to thereplies filed by the assessee. 9. In view of such fair statement made, no useful purpose wouldbe served in keeping the present writ petition pending or callingfor reply. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Theimpugned order dated 06.03.2023 is set aside and the matter isremitted to the Faceless Assessment Authority to pass a freshorder strictly in accordance with law as may necessarily involvegranting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any factdecision may arise. Order Date :- 10.5.2023Abhilash . (S. D. Singh, J) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ)