“We Will Impose Substantial Cost on Assessing Officer for Passing Orders without Application of Mind,” Warns Bombay HC
Moneylife Digital Team 20 October 2021
Coming down heavily on tax officials, the Bombay High Court (HC) has warned that it will impose substantial cost if the income tax (I-T) department continues to pass orders "without application of mind."
 
In a strongly worded order, the bench of justice KR Shriram and justice Amit B Borkar says, "Respondents are put to notice, and Akhileshwar Sharma (counsel for National Faceless Assessment Centre-NFAC- set up by the Central Board of Direct Taxes-CBDT) to circulate this order right from the revenue secretary to everybody in the finance ministry, that if such orders are continued to be passed, this court will be constrained to impose substantial costs on the concerned assessing officer (AO) to be recovered from his or her salary and also direct the department to place such judicial orders in the career records of such assessing officer."
 
Mumbai-based Mantra Industries Ltd had approached the HC against the I-T department's initialisation of penalty proceedings against it under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
 
Mantra Industries contended that the assessment order was passed without following the principles of natural justice in as much as its request for an adjournment had not been considered and a request for personal hearing had not been considered. Most importantly, the reply and objection filed in response to the show-cause notice with the draft assessment order, had not been considered, the company contended.
 
On 22 April 2021, Mantra Industries received a notice for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 asking the company why the assessment should not be completed as per its draft assessment order. The company was asked to submit its reply by 23.59 hours on 24 April 2021.
 
The next day, Mantra Industries responded to the notice stating that travelling was a problem due to an increase in COVID-19 cases and its staff was unable to attend work and offices in Mumbai were generally closed. It also informed the tax authorities that the company wished to object to the modification and also, a request to give personal hearing was made. It sought 20 days to fulfil the requirements as per the notice.
 
On 27 April 2021, the company provided quantitative details sought by the I-T department in the show-cause notice. While the company was given only two days to respond, almost after six weeks, the tax authorities passed an assessment order on 8 June 2021.
 
The bench observed, "The assessment order is an exact reproduction of the draft assessment order except for one sentence which has been added 'Regarding this show cause notice issued to the assessee on 22 April 2021, but assessee has not given any justification for non-furnishing of quantitative details in form 3CD'."
 
"This itself shows that tax authorities have passed the assessment order without application of mind, without considering the two replies dated 23rd April and 27 April 2021 filed by Mantra Industries and without considering the request for personal hearing also sought by the company," it says.
 
“Strangely,” the bench says, "in the affidavit in reply filed by one Yashpal Singh and affirmed on 29 July 2021, it is stated that 'the noting records show that the submission dated 23rd April and 27 April 2021 both taken on record and considered'. But the assessment order does not reflect this. We wonder how does the affiant (a person who makes an affidavit) know something, which the assessment order does not reflect."
 
In its affidavit in reply, the I-T department submitted that Mantra Industries has not furnished the quantitative details in item 35(b) in form 3CD and also not given any justification for non-furnishing quantitative details form 3CD. On failure of the company to furnish the details in the prescribed form 3CD, the assessment was completed as per the provisions under Section 144 of the I-T Act on 8 June 2021, it stated.
 
The HC, however, pointed out that this was contrary to what was stated in the same affidavit that the noting records show that the submission dated 27 April 2021 has been taken on record and considered.
 
Mr Sharma, the counsel of NFAC, tried to justify the stand by stating that the quantitative details filed on 27 April 2021 are not strictly according to the format prescribed.
 
The bench says, "We have compared the details provided by Mantra Industries and form 35(b) annexed to the affidavit in rejoinder. We do not find any difference except that in the response dated 27 April 2021, the product manufactured, wet grinders, is mentioned. We have also to note that this is not the case in the assessment order, which has proceeded on the basis that no response at all has been filed to the notice dated 22 April 2021. There cannot be anything far from the truth."
 
The HC says it is compelled to set aside the impugned order passed on 8 June 2021 and also the consequential notices issued by the tax authorities. "Sub-section 9 of section 144B of the I-T Act provides that any assessment made shall be non-est (the return of a writ or process) if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section.
 
"Therefore, the impugned order being non-est, the AO may take such steps as advised in accordance with the law. We are not making any observations on the merits of the case," the bench says while disposing the petition.
Comments
saharaaj
1 month ago
Ur Lordship presumes mind is in its proper place , presumption needs to be proved by revenue agency
saharaaj
1 month ago
result of putting reservation in top gear confer authority disproportionate to capability and capacity of chair occupier
saharaaj
1 month ago
careful is last work in IT
suptim55
1 month ago
I won't support the way faceless AO violated the citizens' charter under the pressure of the department but why only that individual officer made scapegoat? The decision may be challenged in the apex court for delivering such a judgement without going through the circumstances, merit of the order and other aspects of the case. Is it a high pitch assessment? I have no idea. May be he was given 500 cases for application of mind in few months.
VN KULKARNI
1 month ago
IN FACT SOME PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THA OFFICIALS TO DETER THEM FROM REPEATING SUCH ORDERS. IT IS HIGH TIME THAT THIS SOULD BE ENFORCED IMMEDIATELY.
suptim55
Replied to VN KULKARNI comment 1 month ago
I don't agree to your overreaction though I won't support the way faceless AO violated the citizens' charter under the pressure of the department but why only that individual officer made scapegoat? Is it a high pitch assessment? I have no idea. May be he was given 500 cases for application of mind in few months.
good.shah999
1 month ago
Everytime the court says next time. Waiting for that next time to come. It has not come in my 50 years of life. If it would have come, may be the country would have been in a better state. The judicial system today is feared by the honest and not the dishonest. For the dishonest the judicial system is a boon.
suptim55
Replied to good.shah999 comment 1 month ago
don't agree to your overreaction though I won't support the way faceless AO violated the citizens' charter under the pressure of the department but why only that individual officer made scapegoat? Is it a high pitch assessment? I have no idea. May be he was given 500 cases for application of mind in few months.
Kamal Garg
Replied to good.shah999 comment 1 month ago
I like the term :"for the dishonest the judicial system is a boon". How pathetic state of affairs.
suptim55
Replied to Kamal Garg comment 1 month ago
Exactly ????
bhvyasandco
1 month ago
Congratulations to judges for maintaining spirit of the provision of law.
parasramjika
1 month ago
The Court should have levied penalty on the concerned officer as well as the government as the maxim that "The king can do no wrong" isn't applicable in present times when no monarchy exists and it's a reflection of the medieval mindset when the government is a institution in itself and the principles of vicarious liability be affixed over it.
suptim55
Replied to parasramjika comment 1 month ago
I don't agree to your overreaction though I won't support the way faceless AO violated the citizens' charter under the pressure of the department but why only that individual officer made scapegoat? Is it a high pitch assessment? I have no idea. May be he was given 500 cases for application of mind in few months.
0305svenkat
Replied to parasramjika comment 1 month ago
The Govt Bureaucrats have a feeling that they are above law. Many times their actions are arbitrary and illogical. When facts and laws are produced, it only irks them and they adopt threatening postures. This tendency needs to be curbed which only the courts can do. While it would be improper to generalise matters, it is a fact that such egoistic buaerocrats also abound.
This tendency can be curbed only if monetary and punitive judgements are pronounced.
S.SuchindranathAiyer
1 month ago
Bombay High Court threatens Income Tax officials with serious damages for working without application of mind: Wake me up if ever a Neta or a Babu is actually held to account for abuse of power by the judiciary(!) India's Government works with unconscionable rapacity and contumacy secure in this knowledge that they are above the law. Iron statue of India, Patel made it Constitutionally so.
S.SuchindranathAiyer
1 month ago
Wake me up if ever a Neta or a Babu are actually heldto account for abuse of power by the judiciary(!)
suptim55
Replied to S.SuchindranathAiyer comment 1 month ago
Is your categorization inclusive or exclusive? Why only neta, babu? Try to touch the noblemen too ????
GST Issues: A Whopping Rs6.14 Lakh Crore Input Tax Credit-ITC-Remains Blocked through Rule 86A, Reveals RTI
Moneylife Digital Team 11 October 2021
Updated to include tweet response from GSTN
 
During September this year, revenues collected for goods and services tax (GST) touched a five-month high at Rs1.17 lakh crore, says the Union ministry of finance. However, a...
I-T Portal Glitches: Taxpayers Receiving Notices under Section 143(1)(a), but Unable To Respond
Moneylife Digital Team 07 October 2021
The issues with the  new income-tax (I-T) website, handled by Infosys Ltd, do not seem to end the harassment and agony being faced by taxpayers and chartered accountants (CAs). The latest in the 'technical glitch' of the I-T website...
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback