KRIYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/4354/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Kriya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, a cooperative society engaged in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce, which sought to quash an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that they were eligible for deductions under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and faced technical issues that prevented them from uploading their response to a show-cause notice on the portal. Despite multiple opportunities granted to file a reply, the petitioner could not submit their response due to these technical glitches, leading to the passing of the assessment order. The court, referencing the decision in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, found that the assessment order violated the principles of natural justice and set it aside, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764934 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; N S BHATI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK KEDAWAT; MOHD BILAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Natural Justice; Quashing of assessment order; Technical glitch
• Section: 143(2); 80(P)

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:47438-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4354/2023 Kriya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Having Its Registered Address At Pala B.o., Ram Nagar, Kumher, Bharatpur - 321301, Rajasthan, India Through Its Authorized Signatory Akash Mittal Son Of Jitendra Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Gulal Kund, Outside Mathura Gate, Bharatpur - 321001, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bharatpur, Having Its Address At Income Tax Department, Goverdhan Gate, Near Head Post Office, Bharatpur - 321001, Rajasthan, India 2. The Income Tax Officer, Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Having Its Address At Income Tax Department, Room Number 401, 2Nd Floor, Near Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110003, Delhi, India. 3. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt), Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Through Its Chairman, Having Its Address At South Block, New Delhi, Delhi, India - 110011 4. Additional Director E-Services, Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) (Income Tax), Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat with Mr. Mohd. Bilal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. NS Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 19/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of assessment order dated 08.09.2022 passed for assessment year 2020-21. [2024:RJ-JP:47438-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4354/2023] 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a co-operative society and as per pleading petitioner is eligible for deduction under Section 80-P of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’). A show-cause notice (for short 'SCN') under Section 143(2) for framing a faceless assessment was issued on 29.06.2021. The reply could not be uploaded on portal due to technical glitch. The petitioner raised a grievance before the National Faceless Assessment Centre vide application dated 03.05.2022 and was granted five days time on 24.08.2022. The petitioner was again not successful in uploading the reply on the portal. The grievance was brought to the notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide application dated 01.09.2022 but in the meantime, assessment order dated 08.09.2022 was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to technical glitch in portal the reply could not be filed. The petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend the case. The contention is that the petitioner-society is indulging in sale and purchase of agriculture produce of its member and these figures of sale purchase has been added to income of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was granted eight opportunities to file reply but the needful was not done. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage on instructions from the client submits that in case one opportunity is granted to file a response to the notice, the petitioner shall not raise the objection of the assessment being time barred. 6. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondent on the tabular chart reproduced in the reply to show that eight [2024:RJ-JP:47438-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4354/2023] opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file the reply is not enhancing the case of the respondent. The opportunities were granted till 22.03.2022 but reply could not be uploaded on portal and the National Faceless Assessment granted extension of time to file reply on 23.08.2022. Even after grant of extension, working of the portal was not hundred per cent, resultantly, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to file reply. 7. The assessment order passed is in violation of principle of natural justice. Exceptional case is carved out for interfering in the writ jurisdiction inspite of statutory remedy of appeal. Reliance is placed upon decision of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1. 8. The impugned assessment order is set aside, the assessing office shall proceed with the SCN dated 29.06.2021 in accordance with law and after providing an opportunity to file the reply. The assessment order is set aside subject to undertaking given by the petitioner, not to raise the issue of assessment being time barred. 9. The petition is allowed. 10. It is desirable that assessing office shall make an endeavour to complete the assessment proceedings as expeditiously as possible. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/32 Whether Reportable: Yes / No "