Series of adjournments granted to assessee indicates that hearing opportunity was granted; assessment order valid

Case Details: Unisource Hydro Carbon Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2021] 131 taxmann.com 175 (Calcutta)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Md. Nizamuddin, J.
  • R.N. Dutta, Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury and Abhijit Das, Advs. for the Petitioner. 
  • S.N. Dutta and Asok Bhowmik, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee filed the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the faceless assessment order on the alleged ground f violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee contended that Assessing Officer (AO) didn’t grant adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to it. Since violation of natural justice is a jurisdictional error, AO had committed a jurisdictional error.
On the other hand, AO said that the assessee was granted ample opportunity to hear from time to time in the course of the assessment proceeding, which would appear from records being documents annexed to the Writ Petition.

High Court Held

The Calcutta High Court held that it was established from the record that a series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the assessee from time to time. However, the assessee did not comply with many notices and, sometimes in response to some of the notices on some occasion, replied to the show-cause notice in detail and furnished material evidence and documents in support of its case before AO.
Considering the above fact, the assessee could not make out a case of any patent jurisdictional error or that the AO acted contrary to any specific provision of law in the course of the assessment proceeding.
Since sufficient opportunities of hearing were given to the assessee, there was no violation of principles of natural justice while passing assessment order by AO.

Case Review

• • International Management v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 128 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi);
  • Raja Builders v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 127 taxmann.com 339/280 Taxman 304 (Bom.);
  • Sanjay Aggarwal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 127 taxmann.com 637/281 Taxman 282/436 ITR 180 (Delhi)
  • Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise 1978 (2) ELT (J229) (Cal.) (para 11-15) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Magick Woods Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Addl./Jt./Dy./Asstt. CIT [W.P. No. 10693 (W) of 2021, dated 28-4-2021] (para 11)
  • International Management v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 128 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi) (para 11)
  • Suresh Kumar Lakhotia v. National e-Assessment Centre [Writ Petition (ST) No. 10639 of 2021, dated 12-5-2021] (para 12)
  • Raja Builders v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 127 taxmann.com 339/280 Taxman 304 (Bom.) (para 13)
  • Sanjay Aggarwal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 127 taxmann.com 637/281 Taxman 282/436 ITR 180 (Delhi) (para 14)
  • Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise 1978 (2) ELT (J229) (Cal.) (para 15)