HINDUSTAN GOLD REFINERS & MINT PRIVATE LTD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/255/2023HC DelhiDLHC01000322202310 January 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) ought to have granted the petitioner time until 18.12.2022 to submit a reply, given that a short accommodation was sought on 15.12.2022. Although the petitioner filed a reply on 16.12.2022 via email, the AO passed the impugned order without considering it. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2022. The AO was directed to carry out a de novo exercise from the stage of the show cause notice dated 08.12.2022, framing a fresh assessment order after taking into account the petitioner's reply dated 16.12.2022. Furthermore, the AO was directed to grant the petitioner's authorized representative an opportunity for a personal hearing via video-conferencing, after issuing a notice fixing the date and time. The Court explicitly stated that nothing in its order would impact the merits of the case, as the matter was not examined on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hindustan Gold Refiners & Mint Private Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.12.2022 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also challenged were a notice of demand dated 24.12.2022 under Section 156 and a notice initiating penalty under Section 270A to 271AAC. The assessment year in question is 2021-2022. The petitioner filed its return on 14.01.2022. Following various notices and replies, a show cause notice proposing variation in income was issued on 08.12.2022, with a deadline of 15.12.2022 for response. The petitioner sought an extension till 18.12.2022. The designated portal was closed on 15.12.2022, leading the petitioner to file a reply via email on 16.12.2022. The impugned order was passed without considering this reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in passing the assessment order dated 24.12.2022 without considering the petitioner's reply filed on 16.12.2022, which was submitted after a request for extension of time was made. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that a short accommodation was sought on 15.12.2022 to file a response till 18.12.2022. Despite the portal being closed, a reply was filed via email on 16.12.2022. The impugned order was passed without the AO having the benefit of this reply, thereby prejudicing the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and stated that a counter-affidavit need not be filed, implying no specific argument against the petitioner's procedural grievance at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023/DHC/000407

W.P.(C)No.255/2023 Page 1 of 4

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of decision : 10.01.2023 + W.P.(C) 255/2023

HINDUSTAN GOLD REFINERS & MINT PRIVATE LTD

..... Petitioner

Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.

versus

NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 963/2023 1. Allowed, subject to the petitioner filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. W.P.(C) 255/2023 and CM APPL. 962/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Ajit Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 2.2 In view of the directions that we intend to pass and having regard to the record made available to the court, Mr Sharma says that counter- Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.01.2023 13:42:31 Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023/DHC/000407

W.P.(C)No.255/2023 Page 2 of 4

affidavit need not be filed. 3. Accordingly, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at this stage itself. 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.12.2022 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]. 4.1 In addition thereto, challenge is also laid to the notice of demand dated 24.12.2022 issued under Section 156 of the Act and the notice initiating penalty under Section 270A to 271AAC. 5. The record shows that the petitioner had filed a return concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2021-2022 on 14.01.2022. 6. On 27.06.2022, the petitioner was issued a letter intimating that assessment in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B of the Act had been completed. 7. Thereafter, on 28.06.2022 a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. 7.1 The aforesaid notice was followed by notice dated 29.09.2022 issued qua the petitioner under Section 142(1) of the Act. This notice was apparently replied to by the petitioner on 20.10.2022. 7.2 The respondents/revenue issued further notices under Section 142(1) of the Act on 10.11.2022 and 15.11.2022. These notices were replied by the petitioner on 12.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 respectively. As a matter of fact, two replies dated 22.11.2022 appear to have been filed by the petitioner. 8. According to the petitioner, the respondents/revenue proposed a variation in the income written by the petitioner via show cause notice dated 08.12.2022. The petitioner was, however, given time till 15.12.2022 to file a Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.01.2023 13:42:31 Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023/DHC/000407

W.P.(C)No.255/2023 Page 3 of 4

response to the said show cause notice. 9. The petitioner avers that on 15.12.2022, extension of time was sought to file a response till 18.12.2022. 10. Apparently, designated portal was closed on 15.12.2022, and therefore the petitioner could file the reply only on 16.12.2022, albeit via e- mail. The impugned order dated 24.12.2022 was passed without the Assessing Officer (AO) having benefit of the reply filed by the petitioner on 16.12.2022. 11. Given the fact that a short accommodation was sought by the petitioner on 15.12.2022, we are of the view that the AO ought to have given petitioner time till 18.12.2022 to submit a reply. 12. Notwithstanding the request made, the petitioner did file a reply on 16.12.2022 albeit via e-mail. Therefore, in fitness of things, we are of the view that impugned order should be set aside, with liberty to the AO to carry out a fresh exercise. 12.1 It is ordered accordingly. 13. The AO will carry out a de novo exercise from the stage at when show cause notice dated 08.12.2022 was positioned and frame an assessment order, after taking into account the reply dated 16.12.2022 filed by the petitioner. 13.1 Since Dr Rakesh Gupta, at this stage, says that the petitioner would want a personal hearing in the matter as well, the AO will accord opportunity to the authorized representative of the petitioner to be heard in- person.

13.2 The AO will issue a notice fixing the date and time. 13.3 The AO will grant hearing to the authorized representative of the Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.01.2023 13:42:31 Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023/DHC/000407

W.P.(C)No.255/2023 Page 4 of 4

petitioner via video-conferencing (VC). 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 15. Needless to state, since we have not examined the matter on merits, nothing stated above will impact the merits of the case.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

JANUARY 10, 2023 / tr

Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:20.01.2023 13:42:31 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →