Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Kovalam Santhana Krishnan Mohan Versus Income Tax Officer

2017 (12) TMI 363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reopening of assessment - violation of principles of natural justice - whether 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? - Held 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. - The explanation offered by the learned senior standing co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy For the Respondent : Mr. Sundareshwaran, SSC ORDER Heard Mr.Suhrith P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion dated 03.08.2017 sought for the reasons for re-opening, which were furnished by the respondent vide reply dated 08.08.2017. The allegation was that as per the records, the petitioner had not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and on verifying the ITS details available in the AST, it is found that the petitioner sold immovable properties to the tune of ₹ 4,81,92,575/- during the financial year 2009-2010 (relavant to the assessment year 2010-2011). Apart from t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it till 27.09.2017, as he had already fixed a date for production of records. Unfortunately, the respondent appears to have been in a hurry and has passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2017. 6. On the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent has scanned the explanations given by the petitioner for the notice for the re-opening and incorporated the same in the impugned order and the reason for rejection of the objections appears to be only one, which is to the effect that on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version