BHIMA JEWELS Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When an existing system is undergoing a radical change, there may be times - transition times, when inadequacies to cope with the change, may result in hardship and immeasurable prejudice to one party. One such instance seemingly arises in the instant case.

(2.) An order of assessment issued for the assessment year 2017-18, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') is the basis for the challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. Violation of the principles of natural justice is the premise on which the challenge is built upon.

(3.) Petitioner is involved in the business of gold and diamond jewellery and is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 2017-18, a return was filed by the petitioner, which was subsequently revised, declaring a total income of Rs.20,26,65,360.00. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and an intimation under sec. 143(2) of the Act was also given. Thereafter, petitioner was called upon to furnish the data and documents under sec. 142(1) of the Act, by notice dtd. 2/12/2019. A detailed reply was given by the petitioner on 6/12/2019 and again on 11/12/2019. Since nothing was heard from the assessing officer, petitioner alleges that, based upon the replies submitted, it assumed that the assessing officer was satisfied and the assessment was concluded. The belief was fortified by the fact that in the meantime, the assessing officer had issued an order under sec. 92CA of the Act to the extent of holding that for the year 2017-18, no transfer pricing adjustment was even considered necessary.