9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for short "IT Act") without giving reasonable opportunity as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said order. 2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus: (a) Petitioner is engaged in the business of operating excavators (TATA Hitachi) and doing excavation work. During the AY 2015-16 petitioner's income was less than basic exemption limit and she did not file return. (b) While so, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 04.04.2022 U/s 148 of the IT Act stating that the petitioner has not filed returns for the AY 2015-16 and as per the information flagged under Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the category of "High Risk CRIU/VRO" informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,34,89,033/- which is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence the writ petition. 3. Respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition. (a) Firstly it is contended that as against the impugned assessment order the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. (b) For the AY 2015-16 the petitioner did not file returns U/s 139(1) of the IT Act. It was noticed under the head "High Risk CRIU/VRU information", during the FY 2014-15 the assessee purchased immovable property worth Rs. 57,36,000/- and received rent on plant and machinery of Rs. 80,720/-. Therefore to bring to tax the said income that escaped assessment, notice U/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case on 17.03.2023 and passed the assessment order on 21.03.2023. The request of the petitioner for video conferencing could have been considered had she submitted compliance to the show cause notice within the stipulated time i.e., 16.03.2023. The onus lies on the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to answer the further queries raised by the assessing officer. Though ample opportunities were provided, the petitioner failed to submit explanation. Hence the petitioner cannot claim violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder opposing the contention raised in the counter. In the said rejoinder the petitioner reiterated that she submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35,81,407/- Total Income / Loss determined Rs. 1,34,89,033/- 8. The petitioner's case is that so far as items No. 1 and 2 are concerned, she submitted explanation to the notice issued on 04.04.2022. However, thereafter the assessing officer has included additional points showing the alleged unexplained investment on the machinery, undisclosed credits and unexplained opening capital etc., and has given time till 07.03.2023 for the response of petitioner. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted a request to the respondent seeking extension of time on medical grounds till 20.03.2023 to submit the documents called for. The petitioner also requested for a video conference on 24.03.2023 since the above iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndeavour is to scrutinize whether in the entire process of passing the impugned assessment order by the respondent, there was any violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In this context, the petitioner filed copies of screen shots of official web portal of the respondents styling "e-Filing anywhere anytime/Income Tax Department, Government of India" to show that indeed, the petitioner made request for adjournment on medical grounds. Hence we perused those screen shots. (1) The screen shot under the head "adjournment details" shows notice U/s 142(1) of IT Act was issued on 02.03.2023 fixing the response due date as 07.03.2023. It further shows that on 07.03.2023 adjournment was requested on medical grounds upto 20.03.2023. The afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent any refusal communication in time to the petitioner so as to enable her to submit her case on the date fixed by the respondents. On the other hand, the respondent passed the impugned order on 21.03.2023. The conspicuous silence of the respondents and passing of the impugned assessment order resulted in violation of principles of natural justice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the respondents passed the impugned assessment order without giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit her case on the points raised by the respondents. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 12. It is trite law that availability of efficacious alternative remedy is not a bar for a constitutional Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
