9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding the issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion and it is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. As particularly the fact that the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 is a non-speaking order, the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby set-aside. The petitioner is directed to file reply in the revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act within two weeks from today. - Misc. Bench No. - 22552 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2021 - Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha And Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav JJ. For the Petitioner : Pradeep Agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016-17, is relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18. He argued that on 11.03.2018, a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner merely on the basis that a sum of ₹ 14,96,991/- has been deposited by the petitioner in cash in the Central Bank of India, Burhwal Branch, Barabanki, however, the said notice was never received by the petitioner. Thereafter, another notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 06.09.2019 to the petitioner for submitting reply by 16.09.2021 but the petitioner could not succeed to file reply on account of technical glitch. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.09.2019, whereby the respondent no.3-Income Tax office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year; no appeal is filed before the first appellate authority and the application must be accompanied by a fee of ₹ 500/-. He argued that since all the requirements were amply proved by the facts and records and, therefore, the respondent no.1 could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act but he did not do so. Subsequently, the case was re-fixed by the respondent no.1 and the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act was dismissed vide impugned ex parte order dated 18.03.2021 merely on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any response in the revision filed by him. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner participated in the assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is true that none recording of reasons, none consideration of admissible evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to be unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi : 2011 (296) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and the judgment of this Court in Excise Appeal No. 17 and 18 of 2018 : Mamta Steels India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , decided on 01.08.2019, has submitted that the petitioner is ready to submit the reply in the revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
