9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ITAT immediately, rather than to wait till the fag end of six months' expiry time and to issue notice on one fine day, i.e., 19.07.2024, by quantifying the penalty amount and calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount, the petitioner, who has issued with such notice all of a sudden, sought for two weeks' time to putforth their contention and to file supportive documents, which the respondent refused to grant citing the expiry of time period as reason for such refusal. Thus, it is clear that the respondent remained a mute spectator for nearly five months, right from the date, on which, the orders were passed by ITAT i.e. on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 and at the eleventh hour, the respondent issued notice dated 19.07.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer for the AYs 2003-04; 2004-05; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10, the present filed an Appeal before CIT (Appeals) NFAC on 27.01.2009 and the said Appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 14.12.2022, against which, the petitioner filed second Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the ITAT vide order dated 10.01.2024, partly allowed the Appeal; that consequent to the order passed by ITAT, the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 19.07.2024, and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why, order imposing penalty should not be made under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the petitioner, on receipt of said notice sought for two weeks, however, without granting sufficient time to the petitioner, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the same suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned Junior Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent would submit that in terms of provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent is supposed to pass the penalty order on or before six months and in the petitioner's case, the Appeals filed by the petitioner were partly allowed by the ITAT on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 and the date, on which, the order passed by ITAT is reckoned, the time period prescribed under the Act was about to expire on 31.07.2024, and though the petitioner has sought for two weeks' time, the respondent vide letter dated 24.07.2024, citing p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udden, sought for two weeks' time to putforth their contention and to file supportive documents, which the respondent refused to grant citing the expiry of time period as reason for such refusal. 7.2 Thus, it is clear that the respondent remained a mute spectator for nearly five months, right from the date, on which, the orders were passed by ITAT i.e. on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 and at the eleventh hour, the respondent issued notice dated 19.07.2024 and called upon the petitioner to show cause to why, penalty should not be imposed and though the petitioner appeared in person and sought time on two occasions, the respondent, without acceding to any of such request made by the petitioner, proceeded to pass orders, thereby, giving effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
