K A RAUF, vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that merely because this Court had set a time limit to dispose of the matter while rendering the judgment in W.P.(C)No.25978 of 2020, is no reason for the assessing authority to hold that an effective opportunity of cross examination need not be extended to the petitioner. It is submitted that the orders of assessment which are now impugned in these writ petitions would clearly show that the petitioner had co-operated with the assessment in every manner possible and it is only on account of the failure of the witness in question to appear before the assessing authority that the petitioner was forced to request for adjournment to exercise his right to cross examination. It is submitted that certain details sought for by the petitioner from the Assessing Authority were also provided only the day prior to the date fixed for cross examination. It is submitted that these matters cumulatively show that an effective opportunity was not given to the petitioner and therefore, the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years mentioned above must be set aside and the petitioner must be afforded a fresh opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and produce such materials that may be necessary before the assessing officer.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Department points out that the assessment orders impugned in these writ petitions have been issued as early as on 05.03.2021. It is submitted that these writ petitions cannot be considered on account of the fact that the challenge to the assessment orders are made belatedly and only in the month of June 2022. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal and there is no reason for this court to examine the question as to whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity before the assessing officer. It is submitted that the communications exchanged between the assessing officer and the petitioner will clearly show that the assessing officer had extended every possible opportunity to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply contends that the officer had waited till the last possible moment to initiate proceedings following the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.25978 of 2020. It is pointed out that though the said judgment was delivered on 25.11.2020, the officer issued the first notice following the judgment only in the month of February 2021 and he proceeded to complete the assessment hurriedly stating that the time limit fixed by this Court for completing the assessment expires on 07.03.2021. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, I am of the view that there is merit in the contention taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that this court should not interfere with the assessment orders in question on account of the fact that the challenge to the same is made belatedly and almost after one year and three months after those assessment orders are passed.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to decline relief in these writ petitions making it clear that the petitioner may file appeals against the assessment orders in question also raising the contention that the assessing officer failed to give an effective opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses as directed by this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C)No.25978 of 2020. With the above observation, these writ petitions will stand dismissed. GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK