MUDAR SUDHEER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned final assessment order in DIN: ITBA/AST/S/ 143(3)/2021-22/1036001622(1) dtd. 29/9/2021 issued under Sec. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is assessed to tax vide PAN No.ACAPM9587E under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed his returns on 29/9/2015 declaring the total income at Rs.3,94,84,810.00, after claiming exemption of Rs.1,22,34,821.00 under Sec. 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his revised returns on 31/10/2015 declaring the total income at Rs.3,94,84,810.00. The assessment under Sec. 143 (3) of the Act was completed on 21/4/2017 determining the assessed income at Rs.3,99,40,410.00. Thereafter, the said assessment order dtd. 21/4/2017 was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupathi vide his orders F.No.263/Pr.CIT/TPT/2019-20, dtd. 13/3/2020 directing the Assessment Officer to re-assess the assessment de novo in accordance with law after making necessary examination and verification with regard to the issue. Pursuant to the said directions, a notice under Sec. 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued to the petitioner on 8/2/2021 calling for his explanation. In response thereto, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on 18/2/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the assessment order dtd. 26/9/2021 and directing him to file his objections, if any, on or before 27/9/2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he specifically requested for personal hearing through video conferencing, the impugned order of assessment dtd. 29/9/2021 came to be passed under Sec. 143 (3) read with Sec. 263 read with Sec. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording any opportunity of being heard through video conferencing. The same is challenged in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed his counter admitting that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing as sought by him, but, however, contended that he was given sufficient opportunities in accordance with the principles of natural justice, which were not availed of by the petitioner. The petitioner has not made 3 out any, prima facie, case seeking interference of this court, and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition.