9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has not even referred to the said objections filed by the petitioners in the impugned orders of assessment. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned orders were passed totally by ignoring the objections raised by the petitioners and thus, it violates the principles of natural justice. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment after considering the objections raised by the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.Nos.26452 & 26458 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos.25814, 25818, 25822 & 25824 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2019 - Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu For the Petitioners : Mr.Karthik Sundaram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment after considering the objections filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the very same relief is to be granted in these two cases as well. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that since the impugned orders of assessment were passed without reference to the objections raised by the petitioners, the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, after considering those objections. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 7. It is seen that the very same petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of tax. If this is the interpretation given by the first respondent, it would run contrary to the decision of the Division Bench, dated 05.04.2016, wherein, liberty was granted to file objections to revision notices. This liberty is not an empty formality. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, the first respondent is bound to consider the objections. However, this Court would add a word of caution that, if the petitioner seeks to canvass the very same grounds, that were raised before the Division Bench, while challenging the vires of Section 2 (11), it would be well open to the Assessing Officer to reject such contentions, as has already been considered by the Division Bench and rejected. In any event, the Assessing Officer is bound to say s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the objections. The first respondent is expected to consider the other factual issues, which may be canvassed by the petitioner by way of objections, dated 06.04.2017. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 8. In the present case on hand also, the Assessing Officer has not referred to the objections filed by the petitioners dated 31.05.2019. Perusal of the objections filed by the petitioners, which is placed in the typed set of papers, would show that the petitioner made a detailed objection against the proposal. The Assessing Officer has not even referred to the said objections filed by the petitioners in the impugned orders of assessment. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
