9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pleader (Tax) takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, these main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, since the issue involved in these writ petitions is already covered by an earlier order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner/Assessee. 3. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court against the impugned orders of assessment are as follows: (a) The very notice of proposal issued on 09.01.2018 & 25.01.2018 in respect of all the assessment years itself is a defective one, as the same did not satisfy the mandatory requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment once again, after considering the objections raised by the Assessee therein on merits and in accordance with law. 7. Perusal of the notices of proposal dated 09.01.2018 & 25.01.2018, the reply submitted by the petitioner and the consequential assessment orders passed by the first respondent would undoubtedly, show that the above contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court have justification. It is seen that the Assessing Officer, while issuing the notices of proposal, has not, in fact, invited the petitioner to make their objections by stipulating any time limit. Therefore, it is evident that the very notices of proposal are defective and thus, non-est. However, it is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, is not sustainable. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders of assessment and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, once again, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Officer, who sent the Inspection report, has now become the Assessing Officer and occupied the office of the first respondent. Therefore, he contended that in all fairness, it may not be proper for the said Officer himself to re-do the assessment afresh, since his own report is already there on record and would thus, possibly, prejudice his mind. 9. I find some force in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
