9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 915 - HC - Income TaxValidity of Reassessment order - as argued AO has failed to consider the replies filed by the petitione - HELD THAT - The impugned order dated 21.03.2024 is required to be quashed and set aside, so as to enable the respondent-AO to pass a fresh de novo order taking into consideration, the replies dated 13.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 filed by the petitioner. The petition succeeds in part and is accordingly allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.03.2024 and matter is remitted to the respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh de novo order considering the replies filed by the petitioner dated 13.02.2024 and 21.02.2024. We make it clear that no further opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner as the petitioner did not file any reply to the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2024. Such exercise shall be completed within a period Twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner, a firm involved in diamond processing and export, challenged an assessment order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the National E-Assessment Centre under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had not filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 due to operational closure. The respondent issued notices under Section 148 and 142 (1) of the Act, seeking information. The petitioner faced financial stress and legal hurdles during the assessment proceedings. Despite submitting replies and a synopsis of transactions, the petitioner failed to respond to a show-cause notice proposing income variations. The impugned assessment order added Rs. 1,91,35,55,453/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer did not consider the replies filed on 13.02.2024 and 21.02.2024, which were crucial for the assessment. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer had not considered the replies filed by the petitioner before issuing the show-cause notice dated 08.03.2024. The petitioner's advocate argued that the impugned order lacked basis for adding the specified amount. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the failure to consider the petitioner's replies. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order needed to be quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo order, specifically considering the replies dated 13.02.2024 and 21.02.2024. The Court clarified that no further hearing was required as the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer was directed to complete the reassessment within twelve weeks from the date of the order. In conclusion, the petition was partly allowed by quashing the assessment order and instructing a fresh assessment based on the petitioner's submissions. The Court disposed of the petition, making the rule absolute to the specified extent.
|
