SUHAIL ONATHU KATTIL Vs. DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, NRIs, impugning Exts.P13(a) and P13(b) orders in W.P.(C) No.198/2023 and Exts.P14(a) and P14(b) orders in W.P.(C) No.208/2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.

(2.) The petitioners being NRI assessees under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the assessment is required to be completed as per the provisions of Sec. 144C of the Act. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.198/2023 had filed a return of its income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31/3/2018, disclosing a total income of Rs.9,18,610.00 and for the Assessment Year 2016-17 on the same day, disclosing the total income of Rs.7,96,730.00. An Income Tax search under Sec. 132 of the Act was conducted on the premise of Mr Noor Mohammed Noorshah, Kalliyath, Panniyankara (M/s. Kalliyath Group) on 10/2/2017. The residential premises of Sri Manoj Divakar, General Manager of Focus Mall, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode, is also covered under Sec. 132 of the Act. During the course of the search, a computer printout was seized from the premises of Sri Manoj Divakar. The seized document contained the details of the transaction of Rs.13,65,36,092.00 relating to land purchased behind Focus Mall. Draft assessment orders were served on the petitioner in respect of both the Assessment Years to which the petitioners filed objections before the Assessing Officer, as well as the Dispute Resolution Board. A witness, Sri. Manoj Divakar, one of the buyers of the property, was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter, no opportunity for a hearing was given to the petitioner, as provided under Sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 144C of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Board issued a direction to the Assessing Officer to finalize the assessment order, in the light of the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Board.

(3.) The issue involved in these writ petitions falls under a narrow compass: Whether the opportunity of cross- examination of the witness is an opportunity of hearing as provided under Sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 144C or after the evidence is collected and cross-examination is completed, the assessee is required to be afforded an opportunity of further hearing before the Dispute Resolution Board?