Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (5) TMI 53 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Revision challenged by the Petitioner is that notices prior to the assessment hearings purportedly issued to the Petitioner and served upon him on 28th December 2020 22nd January 2021 and 23rd February 2021 and 14th September 2021 were in fact not served on him physically - HELD THAT - For the AO to conclude in the impugned assessment order that despite the above notices no compliance was made by the Assessee does not appear to be correct particularly when no hearing took place admittedly after 1st February 2021. The impugned assessment order was passed on 29th September 2021 almost eight months after 1st February 2021 the last date of hearing. It is thus apparent that no hearing took place after 1st February 2021 and yet notices were supposed to have been served on the Assessee on at least two dates after the last hearing date. In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner was not given an effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned assessment order was passed. The impugned assessment order as well as the consequential penalty notices under Sections 271(1)(c) and 273 (1)(b) of the Act are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the AO i.e. the ACIT (Central Circle-2) Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) for passing a fresh assessment order after an effective opportunity of hearing is given to the Petitioner. For this purpose the matter will be listed before Opposite Party No.3 on 14th February 2022. A fresh assessment order after hearing the Petitioner shall be passed in accordance with law within a further period of three months thereafter. The Court clarifies that the present order has proceeded only on the procedural illegalities and does not touch upon the merits of the case.
|