9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven to the assessee. To choose not to reply and respond to the request and to then bring a surprise any time in between is something which this Court totally and completely disapproves. While acting as quasi judicial authority, it is expected to follow the principles, which are very well established and one of them is giving opportunity to the parties and to follow the procedure in accordance with law. The day on which the request is made either needs approval or rejection, however, once having kept silence and many days to have passed, it cannot suddenly choose to insist on answering within 24 hours as the other-side would also not be wrong in presuming that such a request is already acceded to and therefore, by 11.04.2022 it was requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the response on or before 27.03.2022. The petitioner sought 15 days time to file objections explaining the reasons for such an adjournment on 20.03.2022. According to the petitioner, his objections to the show-cause notice are under preparation and his tax consultant is extremely busy in filing return of income-tax assessment which were getting time barred on 31.03.2022. He therefore sought adjournment of atleast 15 days to file objections to the issuance of notice under Section-148A of the Act. This was never replied to and an E-mail was received from the respondent on 05.04.2022 at 6:44 p.m. granting time till 1:30 p.m. of 06.04.2022 stating the reason that the matter is time barred. 3. On 06.04.2022 the petitioner requested an adjour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply of the petitioner to be filed. There was a specific request made of 15 days on the ground that the tax consultant was busy in time barring assessment proceedings. The revenue chose not to reply to the same on 27.03.2022. It never replied to the petitioner for it to know whether there has been any positive note to its request for adjournment and all of a sudden, on 05.04.2022, it chooses to direct the petitioner to file its reply on or before 06.04.2022 when it was not a case of time barring assessment nor was there any urgency for it to not even accede to the request of further three days for petitioner to file its reply. This approach is not at all conclusive for the adjudicating authority, which is adjudicating the cause and which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
