Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Das Gupta, filed multiple
writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed under Sections 153A and
143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential notices of demand
under Section 156 and penalty notices under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c).
The impugned orders were issued in June 2021 for
Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2019–20. The petitioner contended that he did not
receive a proper opportunity to respond to notices dated 21 April 2021 due to
confusion arising from an email communication suggesting an extension of time
during the COVID-19 lockdown in Delhi.
It was argued that the lockdown (April–June 2021) prevented effective compliance and submission of relevant documents.
Issues
Involved
- Whether the assessment orders were passed in violation of
principles of natural justice.
- Whether sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioner before passing assessment orders.
- Whether ambiguity in communication by the Income Tax Department regarding extension of time prejudiced the petitioner.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
- The assessment orders were passed without granting an effective
opportunity of hearing.
- The petitioner relied on an email communication dated 21 April 2021
indicating extension of time without specifying a deadline.
- Due to the COVID-19 lockdown in Delhi, the petitioner could not
file responses or produce documents.
- The denial of opportunity caused serious prejudice, including
substantial tax demands and penalty proceedings.
- The petitioner had relevant documents which could have clarified the issues raised by the Assessing Officer.
Respondent’s
Arguments
- The Revenue contended that valid notices dated 21 April 2021 had
been issued.
- It was argued that the subsequent email suggesting extension was
not issued by the respondent authority.
- According to the respondent, compliance with principles of natural justice was sufficient if original notices were considered.
Court’s
Findings
- The Court observed that even if the respondent’s version was
accepted, the petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to respond.
- The COVID-19 lockdown period and ambiguity in communication were
significant factors affecting compliance.
- The Court held that principles of natural justice were not
adequately complied with.
- The petitioner was deprived of a fair chance to present documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer.
Court Order
/ Final Decision
- The impugned assessment orders dated 09 June 2021 and 10 June 2021
were set aside.
- The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for
fresh assessment.
- Directions issued:
- Petitioner to file responses within two weeks.
- Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order after granting
proper hearing.
- Petitioner to appear before the authority on the specified date.
- All writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Important
Clarification by the Court
- Even procedural compliance is insufficient if effective
opportunity is not provided.
- Lockdown conditions and administrative ambiguity must be considered
while evaluating compliance.
- Natural justice requires real and meaningful hearing, not merely issuance of notices.
Sections
Involved
- Section 153A – Assessment in case of search or requisition
- Section 143(3) – Regular assessment
- Section 156 – Notice of demand
- Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) – Penalty proceedings
- Section 142(1) – Inquiry before assessment
Link to download the
order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2021:DHC:2014-DB/MMH09072021CW62782021_093041.pdf
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