2023 (11) TMI 35 - HC - Income Tax

Request of the petitioner for adjournment not been considered - respondent submits that several notices were issued to the petitioner from 2020 onwards, but he failed to respond to all the notices - ld' counsel further submits that the request made by the petitioner for adjournment has not been brought to the notice of the respondent - HELD THAT - As seen from the screenshot produced by the petitioner of the typed set of papers, he made a request to the respondent, seeking 15 to 20 days time for gathering certain documents in support of his appeal. When the petitioner made a request electronically though e-Filing portal of the Department, it is deemed his request is brought to the notice of the respondent. Therefore, the submission made by respondent that the petitioner's request was not properly brought to the notice of the respondent cannot be accepted. Since the impugned order is passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents in support of his appeal as requested by him, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to submit all the documents in support of his appeal before the respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is directed to pass fresh order on consideration of the materials submitted by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of the documents by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner challenged an order for not considering adjournment request.

Summary:

The petitioner filed an appeal against the Assessing Officer's order disallowing expenses. The petitioner requested an adjournment for 15 to 20 days to submit certain documents, but the order was passed without considering this request. The respondent claimed that multiple notices were sent to the petitioner, who failed to respond. However, the petitioner provided evidence of the adjournment request made through the e-Filing portal, which was not considered by the respondent. The court found that since the petitioner's request was made electronically, it should have been considered, and the order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the petitioner instructed to submit all supporting documents within a week. The respondent was directed to issue a new order within twelve weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and related petitions were closed.