High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur: Mr.R.B.Mathur (SR - Advocate) Through VC

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11053/2021
Rati Ram Bambelwal, S/o, Prabhati Lal Bambelwal, Aged About

55 Years, R/o - 0578, Malpura Krishi Upaj Mandi Malpura, Tonk,
304502, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Faceless Asessment Centre, Delhi Through Its
Income Tax Officer.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, (National
Faceless Assessment Centre), Delhi, Room No 356 C.r.
Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110002.
3. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba,
Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote on behalf of
Mr.R.B.Mathur(Sr.Advocate) through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
15/02/2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged an order of assessment dated
15.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment
year 2013-14. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-
3. The petitioner is an individual and is engaged in the business
of trade of jewel commodities. For the assessment year 2013-14
the petitioner had filed return of income on 19.08.2013 declaring
total income of Rs.2,41,610/-. The return filed by the petitioner
was taken in scrutiny. The assessing officer passed an order of
(Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 04:03:58 PM)

(2 of 4) [CW-11053/2021]
assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(for short 'the Act') accepting the assessee's declared income.
4. To reopen such assessment the Assessing Officer had issued
a notice under Section 148 of the Act. This was followed by
notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Since the
petitioner did not reply to these notices, the Assessing Officer
issued a final notice on 03.09.2021 under Section 144 of the Act
and put the petitioner to notice that since he had not responded to
the earlier notices, the Assessing Officer desired to complete the
assessment by way of best judgment. He also outlined his broad
proposals for completing such assessment and in paragraph 6 of
the notice stated that the assessee should submit the response
through registered e-mail account by 10.09.2021 and as per
paragraph 7 of the notice in case the assessee failed to make such
a response, the assessment shall be finalized under Section 144 of
the Act.
5. The assessee replied to the said notice dated 03.09.2021
under a response dated 10.09.2021. This is borne out from a copy
of the e-proceedings response acknowledgment produced by the
petitioner at Annexure-8. This document indicates the name of the
petitioner, the assessment year concerned, it refers to notice
under Section 144 of the Act dated 03.09.2021 and records
10.09.2021 as due date for submission. In response, it indicates
that the reply was received.
6. We may therefore proceed on the basis that petitioner had
filed reply to the last notice issued by the Assessing Officer on
03.09.2021. Despite this, the assessment which was carried out
through faceless assessment system, did not acknowledge such
reply and the contents thereof. This is clear from a bare perusal of

(3 of 4) [CW-11053/2021]
the order of assessment in which the Assessing Officer has
indicated that there was no response from the petitioner to the
notice under Section 148, under Section 142(1) as well as his
notice issued under Section 144 of the Act. He therefore
proceeded to complete the assessment by making certain addition
and assessing total income of the petitioner to Rs.72,14,490/-
with the proposal to initiate penalty proceedings.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, the order of assessment suffers
from violation of principles of natural justice. As noted in response
to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 144
the petitioner had filed a response within time permitted. Perusal
of the reply of the petitioner would show that he opposed the
proposal for making any addition to his declared income. He also
disputed the statements of persons on which the Assessing Officer
wanted to rely upon. He asked for their cross-examination. It was
open for the Assessing Officer to accept or to reject the stand of
the petitioner including his request for cross-examination of the
witnesses. However he could not have ignored the reply and
proceeded to finalize the assessment as if there was no response
from the petitioner whatsoever. Unfortunately this is what the
Assessing Officer has done and in process caused injustice.
8. Only on this ground we are inclined to set aside the order of
assessment. Ordinarily when against an order statutory appeal is
available, the Court would be slow in interfering in a writ petition
bypassing such appeal route. This is more so in fiscal matters.
However when it comes to the clear cut case of breach of
principles of natural justice and denial of fair hearing, this self-
imposed restriction is not applied.

(4 of 4) [CW-11053/2021]
9. Under the circumstances the impugned order of assessment
dated 15.09.2021 is set aside. The assessment is reopened and
shall be completed by the respondents after taking into account
the response of the petitioner dated 10.09.2021 to the notice
issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Act.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR/4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur: Mr.R.B.Mathur (SR - Advocate) Through VC

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur: Mr.R.B.Mathur (SR - Advocate) Through VC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur: Mr.R.B.Mathur (SR - Advocate) Through VC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11053/2021

Rati Ram Bambelwal, S/o, Prabhati Lal Bambelwal, Aged About

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has challenged an order of assessment dated

15.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment

year 2013-14. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-

3. The petitioner is an individual and is engaged in the business

of trade of jewel commodities. For the assessment year 2013-14

the petitioner had filed return of income on 19.08.2013 declaring

total income of Rs.2,41,610/-. The return filed by the petitioner

was taken in scrutiny. The assessing officer passed an order of

(Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 04:03:58 PM)

assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(for short 'the Act') accepting the assessee's declared income.

4. To reopen such assessment the Assessing Officer had issued

a notice under Section 148 of the Act. This was followed by

notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. Since the

petitioner did not reply to these notices, the Assessing Officer

issued a final notice on 03.09.2021 under Section 144 of the Act

the earlier notices, the Assessing Officer desired to complete the

assessment by way of best judgment. He also outlined his broad

proposals for completing such assessment and in paragraph 6 of

through registered e-mail account by 10.09.2021 and as per

paragraph 7 of the notice in case the assessee failed to make such

a response, the assessment shall be finalized under Section 144 of

5. The assessee replied to the said notice dated 03.09.2021

under a response dated 10.09.2021. This is borne out from a copy

of the e-proceedings response acknowledgment produced by the

petitioner at Annexure-8. This document indicates the name of the

petitioner, the assessment year concerned, it refers to notice

under Section 144 of the Act dated 03.09.2021 and records

10.09.2021 as due date for submission. In response, it indicates

that the reply was received.

6. We may therefore proceed on the basis that petitioner had

filed reply to the last notice issued by the Assessing Officer on

03.09.2021. Despite this, the assessment which was carried out

through faceless assessment system, did not acknowledge such

(Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 04:03:58 PM)

the order of assessment in which the Assessing Officer has

indicated that there was no response from the petitioner to the

notice under Section 148, under Section 142(1) as well as his

notice issued under Section 144 of the Act. He therefore

proceeded to complete the assessment by making certain addition

and assessing total income of the petitioner to Rs.72,14,490/-

with the proposal to initiate penalty proceedings.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the documents on record, the order of assessment suffers

from violation of principles of natural justice. As noted in response

to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 144

the petitioner had filed a response within time permitted. Perusal

of the reply of the petitioner would show that he opposed the

proposal for making any addition to his declared income. He also

disputed the statements of persons on which the Assessing Officer

wanted to rely upon. He asked for their cross-examination. It was

open for the Assessing Officer to accept or to reject the stand of