9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of respondent/revenue. 3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, Mr Gupta says that a counter-affidavit need not be filed and he will argue the matter based on the record presently available to the court. Therefore, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, the writ petition is taken up final hearing and disposal, at this stage itself. 4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 5. The petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 22.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. Besides this, a challenge is also laid to the consequential notice of even date i.e., 22.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 6. The principal allegation against the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner adverts to the fact (something which has been noted in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act) that the interest was paid and tax at source was deducted under Section 194A of the Act. 10.2 Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized the point that, although an opportunity was sought for personal hearing, the same was not provided by the AO. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the AO was obliged to grant personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative. 10.3 In this behalf, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the circulars issued by the CBDT dated 01.08.2022 and 22.08.2022. 11. On the other hand, Mr Gaurav Gupta, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had underlying material available with him for reaching a conclusion that income chargeable to tax qua the petitioner had escaped assessment. 15.2 This aspect would have, perhaps, become clear if the AO had accorded personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. 16. It is required to be noticed that, as adverted to hereinabove, the search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was not carried out against the petitioner; such action was carried out against a third party. 16.1 Furthermore, the period in issue, as noted right at the outset, is FY 2018-19 [AY 2019-20]. 17. There seems to be weight in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the CBDT via the aforementioned circular i.e., circular da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
