9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order bearing No. F. No: PR.CIT/ITO/JMU/264/2018-19/5472 dated 22.10.2018 by respondent No. 2-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax J&K, Jammu ("in short Pr. CIT") is according to procedural fairness and rules of natural justice or not. 3. Before we come to address ourselves to the impugned order, we need to set out the chronology of events which lead to the landing of the matter before the respondent No. 2- Pr. CIT and the impugned order came to be passed. 4. Two purported transactions of the assessment year 2009-2010 in the form of purported payment of Rs. 12,50,072/- against time deposit and a cash deposit of Rs. 16,73,000/- were found related to the petitioner as being the income tax assessee. 5. By reference to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid notices and course of action at the end of the Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Srinagar, a notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form 7 Rule 15 came to be addressed along with an assessment order by the Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Srinagar, to the petitioner asking for payment of outstanding tax amount of Rs. 24, 62,820/-. This notice was also sent to the same very address of the petitioner which being G-Gangoo Agency, A-296, Maglic Park Azadpur, Delhi. Nothing came to be heard from the petitioner's end in reference to the notice along with demand and assessment order so sent. 9. The culmination of the aforesaid course of action came to take place when an Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Srinagar came to address a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer concerned to revise the assessment as per computation sheet and reduce the demand to Nil. 12. Upon receipt of this petition filed purportedly under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent No. 2- Pr. CIT came to solicit a report from the Assessing Officer concerned which vide a communication dated 17.05.2018 came to be submitted. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with a notice for attending the hearing of the case before the respondent No. 2-Pr. CIT scheduled on 25.07.2018 for which date an adjournment came to be sought for the reason stated by the counsel of the petitioner and further on the adjourned date of hearing on 10.09.2018 another request for adjournment was sought for the reason stated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the petitioner on caveat that on account of refusal of adjournment, the case was to be taken up for hearing on merits on the next date. Even if the petitioner's presence was not to be of any purpose in the estimate of the respondent No. 2-Pr. CIT for enabling adjudication of the revision petition on its merits, we find that the order impugned does not contain any reason whatsoever as to on what basis the respondent No. 2- Pr. CIT came to uphold the validity of the order of the Assessing Officer questioned by the petitioner in the revision petition, more particularly when from the report submitted by Assessing Officer before the respondent No. 2, the enlisted notices issued to the petitioner were for and at the address of G-Gangoo Agency, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
