9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessment year 2006-07 under which the said demand can be stated to have arisen. In plain terms, the department is unable to produce any order giving rise to such demand. The department has not refuted the petitioner’s contention that the return filed by the petitioner for the said assessment year 2006-07 was not taken in scrutiny and simply accepted under section 143(1) of the Act giving r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shnav, JJ. Ms Vaibhavi K Parikh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the department in showing an outstanding demand of ₹ 1,08,31,405/- for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to be issued to the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of ₹ 1,08,31,405/- for the assessment year 2006-07. In response to such demand notice, the petitioner wrote to the department on 02.03.2012 and pointed out that for the assessment year in question no scrutiny assessment had been carried out. No demand of outstanding tax was raised and the demand of ₹ 1,08,31,405/- be dropped. The petitioner sent several reminders on this aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vit-in-reply, we do not find any definite reference to any order of assessment, reassessment or revisional order for the assessment year 2006-07 under which the said demand can be stated to have arisen. In plain terms, the department is unable to produce any order giving rise to such demand. The department has not refuted the petitioner s contention that the return filed by the petitioner for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
