9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner not just sought extension of time till 05.08.2022 to respond but also disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case. However, in the impugned draft assessment orders and the final Assessment Orders, the Assessing Officer recorded that no reply to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was submitted by the petitioner/assessee. On account of this clear non-application of mind, the impugned draft assessment orders, the final Assessment Orders and the consequential demand notices cannot be sustained. Secondly, the notice dated 12.07.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act was clearly vitiated on account of granting hardly three days to the petitioner to respond. Denial of sufficient time to respond was not just an abrogation of jus naturale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. We heard learned counsel for both sides and perused records. At the stage of final arguments, both sides in all fairness agreed that these writ petitions can be disposed of presently on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. 4.1 As claimed by the respondent/revenue, pertaining to the assessment years in question, several notices under Section 148, Section 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice before making best judgment assessment were issued to the petitioner during the period spread between 17.03.2021 and 12.07.2022. 4.2 But according to the petitioner/ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.6 Evidently, in the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer had already passed a draft assessment order on 26.07.2022 based on best judgment which did not acknowledge the brief reply dated 20.07.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner. Ultimately, on the lines of the draft Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order dated 10.09.2022, which is impugned in the instant proceedings. 5. The material on record, genuineness whereof is not in dispute reflects as follows. 5.1 The notice dated 12.07.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act calls upon the petitioner/assessee to produce or cause to be produced the accounts and documents called for as per annexure on or before 11:00 am of 15.07.2022. 5.2 The printout of email date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 20.07.2022 of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner not just sought extension of time till 05.08.2022 to respond but also disclosed vital facts pertaining to its case. However, in the impugned draft assessment orders and the final Assessment Orders, the Assessing Officer recorded that no reply to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was submitted by the petitioner/assessee. On account of this clear non-application of mind, the impugned draft assessment orders, the final Assessment Orders and the consequential demand notices cannot be sustained. 8. Secondly, the notice dated 12.07.2022 under Section 142(1) of the Act was clearly vitiated on account of granting hardly three days to the petitioner to respond. Denial of sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
