9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after taking into the consideration records available/annexed to the Writ Petition, in my considered opinion, sufficient opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice in course of impugned assessment proceeding and in passing the assessment order and in the instant case it cannot be said that the assessing officer/respondent concerned who passed the assessment order was having inherent lack of jurisdiction or his action in course of impugned assessment proceeding was contrary to any specific provision of law and the impugned assessment order is not liable to be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. - W.P. A No. 11041 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN For the Petitioner :- Mr. R. N. Dutta, Adv. Ms. Sutapa Roy chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Das, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In the instant Writ Petition petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 4th June, 2021 rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit the details as called for by earlier notice dated 30th November, 2020 online by 20th December, 2020. It appears at page 50 of the Writ Petition that another notice under Section 142 (1) dated 18th January, 2021 of the Act was issued asking the petitioner to furnish the complete details as called for by the earlier notice dated 30th November, 2020, by 20th January, 2021. It appears at page 52 of the Writ Petition that another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued on 20th January, 2021 for furnishing on or before 4th March, 2021 the accounts and documents specified in the annexure to the said notice. It appears at page 54 of the Writ Petition that on 11th February, 2021 a further notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was issued for compliance on or before 17th December, 2021 by furnishing the documents referred in annexure to the said notice. It appears from Annexure P-4 at page 66 of the Writ Petition that the petitioner had filed an application making prayer for granting further adjournment and extension of time till 24th May, 2021 for filing reply to the show-cause notice under Section 143 (3) of the Act, dated 23rd April, 2021. The petitioner has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner uploaded a detailed reply to the show-cause notice along with some documents and supporting evidence in the official portal of the respondent authorities from which it appears that the petitioner has discussed on merit including making submission with regard to loan transactions in question in reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned Assessment Order both on merit as well as on the alleged ground of violation of principle of natural justice by the respondent concerned by not providing opportunity of hearing which according to the petitioner is jurisdictional error. So far as the challenge to the impugned Assessment Order on merit and dealing with facts and evidences are concerned I am of the considered view that the Income Tax Act is a self-complete code and the petitioner has specific statutory appellate forum for redressal of its grievance if so aggrieved against the impugned assessment order, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which has the power to decide both on facts as well as on law and further before the High Court under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs- National e-Assessment Centre Ors. In the said case also the fact is different from the present case as appears from the said decision that in the said case the petitioner s response to the draft assessment was not considered and notice of demand was raised. Petitioner has relied on another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raja Builders vs- National Faceless Assessment Centre reported in (2021) 127 taxmann.com 339 (Bombay) dated 13th May, 2021 where facts of the said case is also different from the present case since in the said case the allegation of the petitioner was that there was glitches in the operation of Faceless Assessment Scheme and in that case a show-cause notice was issued on 20th April, 2021 and a draft Assessment Order was issued to the petitioner requiring to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed in terms of the draft assessment order and the said show-cause notice appeared for the first time on the E-filing portal on 22nd April, 2021 and on the same day petitioner filed a detailed reply and sought an opportunity of being heard and on 23rd April, 2021 the petitioner had filed a detail reply to the show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Petition and considering the submission of the petitioner and the decisions relied upon by it, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that this is a case where no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and that there was any violation of principle of natural justice. It is established from record that series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner did not comply with many notices and sometime in response to some of the notices on some occasion replied to the show-cause notice in detail and furnished material evidence and documents in support of its case before the Assessing Officer in course of impugned assessment proceeding. In my considered opinion petitioner could not make out a case of any patent jurisdictional error or that the assessing officer acted contrary to any specific provision of law in course of the impugned assessment proceeding. In view of the discussion made above and after taking into the consideration records available/annexed to the Writ Petition, in my considered opinion, sufficient opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner and there was no violation of principles o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
