9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has not been heard before passing the impugned order. HELD THAT:- Admittedly, challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent, Appeal is pending for consideration before the second respondent. Further, it is seen that recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is only due to dismissal of the Appeal by the second respondent, which order, was in fact, an ex parte order passed by the second respondent, however, by virtue of order passed by ITAT, the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order was rejuvenated, since it was an ex parte order. Thus, fact that the petitioner undertaken before the ITAT that they would prosecute the case before the second respondent, by virtue of which, the Appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment order was passed by the first respondent vide order dated 08.04.2021, assessing the petitioner's income at Rs. 12,84,74,810/- and unexplained investment to the tune of Rs. 11,77,00,000/-. Against the said assessment, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, second respondent, and pending the Appeal, the petitioner filed a Petition for Stay before the first respondent. In the meantime, the petitioner, due to oversight, has failed to respond to the email proceedings of the second respondent, the second respondent passed an ex parte order on 06.03.2024. Challenging the said ex parte order, the petitioner prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreeable and passed the present impugned order, directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand as per CBDT'S circular dated 31.07.2017. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned order is liable to be quashd as the first respondent has mechanically passed a non-speaking order without even considering any of the submissions and judgment placed on record by the petitioner during the course of hearing. The learned counsel also contended that the impugned order is not sustainable even on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. 5. Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents would submit that though by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent, Appeal is pending for consideration before the second respondent. Further, it is seen that recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is only due to dismissal of the Appeal by the second respondent, which order, was in fact, an ex parte order passed by the second respondent, however, by virtue of order passed by ITAT, the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order was rejuvenated, since it was an ex parte order. 9. Thus, taking into consideration of the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner undertaken before the ITAT that they wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
