2015 (2) TMI 1232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rtunity to have his say in the mater with regard to the said statement and its contents, it cannot be said that petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned order is passed without providing any fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of assessee.
B. S. Patil, J. For the Petitioner : Harish V. S., Adv. For the Respondent : K. V. Aravind, Adv. ORDER 1. Learned Counsel Mr. Jeevan J.Neeralgi takes notice for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is calling in question assessment order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the respondent - Income Tax Officer exercising powers under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o enable the clients to declare speculation profit/loss, shorter gains, etc., and had identified the petitioner herein and certain others as some of the beneficiaries of the fraudulent entries/transactions by giving a sworn statement in that regard and it is based on the said sworn statement of Mukesh Choksi, respondent has re-opened the proceedings. It is in this background, petitioner had made a request to the respondent on 31.01.2014 to provide a copy of the sworn statement, so that petitioner could take further course of action. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the statement said to have been made by Mukesh Choksi. Petitioner was not aware of the contents of the said statement. However, he file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... viding any fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 8. In fact, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Ashok Mittal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another in WP(C) No.1452/2013, wherein also petitioner therein had specifically objected for the assessment proceedings stating that he had no transaction with either Mukesh Choksi or any other related companies, but the Assessing Officer had solely proceeded on the basis of the statement and the list provided without there being any other information or details furnished to the petitioner though petitioner therein had sought for such details. The High Court of Delhi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X