Facts of the Case
The present writ petition pertains to Assessment
Year 2019–20 and challenges the assessment order dated 19.04.2023 passed under
Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the consequential
notice issued under Section 148.
The petitioner was subjected to a notice under
Section 148A(b) dated 31.03.2023 alleging escapement of income on account of
undisclosed rental income amounting to ₹29,45,600 arising from ten immovable
properties.
The background reveals that during a survey
conducted on 28.01.2020, the petitioner admitted ownership of twelve properties
but had disclosed rental income from only two properties for the relevant
financial year.
Subsequently, multiple notices were issued and
replies were filed by the petitioner seeking details and time to furnish market
rental valuation. The final notice dated 17.04.2023 required submission by
18.04.2023 at 2:00 PM. The petitioner submitted a reply on 18.04.2023 at 1:15
PM along with supporting documents.
However, while passing the impugned order, the
Assessing Officer recorded that no reply had been received.
Issues Involved
- Whether the assessment order passed under Section 148A(d) is liable
to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply filed by
the petitioner within the stipulated time.
- Whether granting an inadequate opportunity to respond vitiates
reassessment proceedings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that she had duly filed a reply within the
time prescribed (before 2:00 PM on 18.04.2023), along with supporting
documents.
- It was argued that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the
said reply, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
- The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order and
requested a fresh opportunity to present her case along with fair market
rental valuation.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Revenue contended that multiple opportunities had already been
granted to the petitioner.
- It was argued that the petitioner failed to respond adequately
within the timeline and therefore no interference was warranted in the
impugned order.
Court’s Findings / Order
- Although several notices were issued, the final opportunity granted
to the petitioner was extremely limited.
- The petitioner had, in fact, filed the reply within the stipulated
time on 18.04.2023.
- The Assessing Officer failed to take into account the reply and
documents submitted by the petitioner.
- The alleged escapement of income was based on notional rent, which
required proper consideration and evaluation.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was a clear
violation of principles of natural justice.
Order:
- The impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d)
and the consequential notice under Section 148 were set aside.
- The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh
adjudication (de novo proceedings).
- The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned (speaking)
order after considering the petitioner’s submissions.
Important Clarification
The Court expressly clarified that:
- The observations made in the judgment shall not affect the merits
of the case.
- The Assessing Officer is free to take an independent decision after
granting proper opportunity of hearing.
Sections Involved
- Section 148 – Income Escaping Assessment
- Section 148A(b) – Inquiry before issuance of notice
- Section 148A(d) – Order deciding whether it is a fit case for
reassessment
- Principles of Natural Justice
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60818052023CW65142023_114854.p
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment