9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the same is taken up for final disposal today itself. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the assessment order dated 2nd June, 2021 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") along with the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice by not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice by not considering detailed submissions as well as the documents filed with letter dated 19th April, 2021 by the petitioner. It was pointed out that the assessment for the year under consideration was getting time bared on 30th June, 2021 and therefore, the respondent Assessing Officer ought not to have passed the impugned order in undue haste by overlooking the submissions and the evidence filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice. It was submitted that as per the provisions of Section 144B(7) the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of personal hearing. 4.1 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Atulbha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply dated 19th April, 2021 filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 16th April, 2021 issued along with Draft Assessment order, while passing the impugned assessment order. The petitioner submitted 16 documents along with the reply dated 19th April, 2021, however, in paragraph 7.3 of the impugned assessment order it is stated by the Assessing Officer that the petitioner reiterated his earlier stand and no new documentary evidence or logic has been put forth and the documents submitted were already considered while framing the draft assessment order. 7. This fact is contrary to the record as it appears from the reply dated 19th April, 2021 which contained 16 annexures furnished by the petitioner, which were no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
