9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment would be heard on 23.03.2016 at 02.30pm. The petitioner would state that the date fixed for hearing having been mentioned as 23.03.2016, the petitioner ignored the said notice as being an incorrect notice and expected a fresh notice would be issued by the first respondent. However, the impugned order came to be passed on 28.03.2017 by which the petitioner's appeal petition against the assessment order dated 12.03.2015 has been allowed and simultaneously the proposal made by the first respondent for enhancement of assessment vide notice dated 10.11.2016 has been confirmed. It is clear that to the said extent, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner did not have adequate opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 3. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the factual matrix of the case as the impugned order has been challenged on the technical ground that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to contest the proposal for enhancement of assessment pursuant to notice dated 10.11.2016. The petitioner had filed a regular appeal before the first respondent challenging the assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 12.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The first respondent issued a notice under Section 251 (1)(a) of the Act proposing an enhancement of the income and directed the petitioner to show-cause against the proposal on or before 12.12.2016. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the first respondent dated 10.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried over in the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 as could be seen from Paragraph 4.5. 4. Furthermore, the petitioner would state that there was no response filed by their authorized representative to the notice dated 10.03.2017 and what has been stated in Paragraph 4.5 is factually incorrect. Thus, taking note of the fact that the petitioner should have an opportunity to put forth their objections with regard to the proposal for enhancement as the proposal in the notice impugned to that extent requires to be set aside, and the matter remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 is set aside insofar as it confirms the proposal for enhanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
