Remanded

Archana Pramod Akhramka v. the National Faceless Assesment Centre and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2022WP/3978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an assessment order due to unreasonable conduct by the officer. The order was remanded for de novo consideration with directions for personal hearing, comprehensive document disclosure, and cross-examination opportunities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned assessment order dated 29th September 2021 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration.

Archana Pramod Akhramka Vs the National… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

913_WP3978_21.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3978 OF 2021

¶4

Archana Pramod Akhramka … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

National Faceless Assessment Centre and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi a/w. Mr. Harsh Kapadia for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶8

DATE : JANUARY 18, 2022

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

We have, with the assistance of counsel, perused the impugned assessment order and also the draft assessment order dated 24^th September 2021. We find the conduct of the officer concerned to be absolutely unreasonable and unfair towards the assessee. At the request of Mr. Sharma we are not going into the details and make observations against the officer concerned.

¶11

Mr. Sharma, in fairness, states that if a request for personal hearing was made, it ought to have been granted and recently even Delhi High Court has stated that personal hearing has to be mandatorily given.

¶12

A request of petitioner for providing some statements etc. of the parties on whose statements reliance has been placed while proposing to re-open the assessment is wrongfully denied. Even the request for crossexamination of those persons has been wrongfully denied. The second request has been rejected saying that time was not enough whereas the same officer gives hardly 72 hours to an assessee to respond.

¶13

In the circumstances, the assessment order dated 29^th September 2021 impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for denovo consideration. The Assessing Officer shall provide

¶14

1/2

¶15

913_WP3978_21.doc

¶16

to petitioner all documents on which the Revenue is relying upon to allege that petitioner has given cash loan of Rs.9,76,27,500/-. A complete set should be given and not just extracts. If the documents contain material relating to other parties unconnected with petitioner then those portions could be redacted or blanked out, but the full document otherwise has to be given. Petitioner shall also be given an opportunity to cross-examine those persons on whose statements Revenue is relying upon.

¶17

Whereafter and in any event, on or before 31^st May 2022, the assessment order shall be passed. Personal hearing notice shall be given minimum seven days in advance. The documents relied upon shall be made available at least two weeks before the persons on whose statements Revenue is relying upon are made available for crossexamination. The date and time shall also be intimated at least seven days in advance.

¶18

If Revenue is relying upon any judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal then advance copy shall be given to the assessee who shall be permitted to distinguish or deal with those judgments or orders.

¶19

Petition is accordingly disposed.

¶20

We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. The assessment proceedings will be conducted by an officer other than the person who had passed the assessment order or the draft assessment order in this case.

¶21

Mr. Gandhi’s statement that the appeal filed against the assessment order will be withdrawn within three weeks from today is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.

¶22

(R. N. LADDHA, J.)

¶23

(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶24

Minal Parab

¶25

2/2

Archana Pramod Akhramka v. the National Faceless Assesment Centre and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Pramod Akhramka v. the National Faceless Assesment Centre and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Green Globe Impex P. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 (1) (2) Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bharat Capital and Holdings Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai and Anr.

Kamlesh Rajnikant Shah Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX(CENTRAL)-4, Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Vishan Satramdas Lakhani Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Archana Pramod Akhramka Vs the National Faceless Assessment Centre and 4 Ors.

Archana Pramod Akhramka, Vs the National Faceless Assesment Centre, and 4 Ors.