TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the impugned order, is not a convincing reply, as the officer by intimation dated 11.09.2017, not only called for the copies of documents, but also the copies of the profit and loss account, the balance sheet and auditor's report Under Section 44 AB of the Act for the assessment year 2009-2010. Thus this Court is convinced that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. These are sufficient reasons to hold that the impugned order cannot stand to the test of law. Writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - Writ Petition No.29614 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.31898 & 31899 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2017 - T. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as per Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3.The petitioner submitted a reply on 18.08.2017 stating that as the transactions were effected during the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner filed his return of income, the returns was accepted and the tax has been paid. Since, there was no income for the assessment year 2010-2011, the petitioner did not file his return. 4. On receipt of the objections the respondent, who appears to have been a very reasonable officer, sent the notice dated 11.09.2017 to the petitioner, by which, the petitioner was directed to produce a copy of the profit and loss account, balance sheet and auditor's report Under Section 44 AB of the Act for the assessment year 2009-2010 with copies of the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, it is contended that the respondent could not have passed the impugned order on 25.9.2017, as he fixed the date for production of documents on 27.9.2017. 9. The above facts clearly show that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner having been afforded an opportunity to produce the records on or before 27.9.2017, the respondent should have waited till 27.9.2017. 10. The explanation offered by the learned senior standing counsel that the officer himself has secured the documents from the concerned Sub-Registrar and therefore, proceeded to pass the impugned order, is not a convincing reply, as the officer by intimation dated 11.09.2017, not only called for the copies of documents, but also the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
