9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act. For the assessment year 201415, the return filed by the petitioner was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 23.12.2016 making an addition of Rs. 44.80 lacs to the petitioner's total income and consequently raised an additional tax demand of Rs. 19,22,773/- A Demand Notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ("the Act" for short), was issued on 23.12.2016 calling upon the petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs. 19,22,773/- within 30 days of service of the notice. In the notice itself, it was conveyed to the petitioner that if such payment is not made, penalty may be imposed under Section 221 of the Act after hearing the petitioner. It was also conveyed that if such amount is not paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 06.02.2017 was dispatched only on 16.02.2017 and was received by the petitioner on 17.02.2017. Thus, the notice was dispatched after the last date indicated in the notice for the petitioner to respond to the contents thereof. It is further the case of the petitioner that 17.02.2017 was a Friday, which was followed by two non working days and the first available working day for the petitioner following the receipt of the notice was the Monday the 20.02.2017. However, the respondent by issuing order of attachment of the bank account to the petitioner in the HDFC Bank on 20.02.2017 itself recovered the said sum of Rs. 19,22,770/- The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for the relief of return of such amount. 3 In short, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be treated as an assessee in default and to produce any stay or installment granted by any authority. The notice was issued on 06.02.2017 allowing the petitioner to appear before the authority latest before 15.02.2017. This notice itself was dispatched on 16.02.2017 and was received by the petitioner on 17.02.2017. On first working day after that, the bank account of the petitioner was attached and full recovery made. 5 In our opinion, the authorities acted in most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. It is not even the case of the respondent that notice dated 06.02.2017 was not necessary in law. If that be so, the authority should have realised that the notice was being dispatched after the last date permitted for the petitioner to react. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
