Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 506 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTValidity of order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 - personal account has been attached by the Income Tax authorities - petitioner’s case that therefore none of the notices that were sent by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was received by petitioner - Husband of assessee died who was the only other director carrying on the business entirely and company was effectively non functional - HELD THAT:- Notices that were sent to petitioner came back undelivered with the endorsement “Left”. The AO it appears from the impugned order, was racing against time because the matter would have got time barred and therefore passed the impugned order. We also find that the impugned order has been passed on the basis that assessee had come to One Time Settlement (OTS) on 21st October 2008 with Union Bank of India for loan taken and in the absence of complete details of the OTS the said amount was added as income of petitioner. Since petitioner/Uma Devesh Ajmera came to know about the existence of the order only on or about March 2020, the time to file appeal has also expired. It is averred in the petition that the OTS with Union Bank of India was only about Rs. 42 Lakhs and not Rs. 9.60 Crores. Therefore, in our view grave prejudice will be caused to petitioner if the impugned order is sustained. As petitioner/Uma Devesh Ajmera stated that she will fully co-operate with the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and provide all details to reconsider the assessment of petitioner for Assessment Year 2009-10. Statement accepted. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. JAO shall, within two weeks provide copy of all notices issued to petitioner through petitioner’s advocate. Within two weeks thereafter petitioner shall reply/show cause to the notices and provide all details and documents.
|