9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the stipulated period - it is contended that during the period between 07.03.2023 and 28.03.2023 petitioner submitted his replies which has not been considered by respondent No.3 in the impugned order, which is contrary to the material on record as well as violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record will indicate that despite the petitioner having submitted his replies on 21.03.2023 and 25.03.2023 prior to passing of the impugned order on 28.03.2023 as held by this Court in Shankar Reddy's case [2023 (9) TMI 1673 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and since the impugned order without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner is violative of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 07.03.2023, the second respondent issued the impugned notice under the Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) seeking to initiate re-assessment proceedings in respect of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The said Show Cause Notice called upon the petitioner to upload its response on the e-filing portal by 17.03.2023. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that due to a technical glitch and non-availability of relevant documents, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit a reply/response within the stipulated period which expired on 17.03.2023, as a res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that despite the petitioner having submitted his replies on 21.03.2023 and 25.03.2023 prior to passing of the impugned order on 28.03.2023 as held by this Court in Shankar Reddy's case supra and since the impugned order without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No.2 committed an error in not considering the reply which was undisputedly submitted prior to the impugned order and consequently, the impugned order passed under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
