9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SRI. K. SHAJ For The Respondent (S) : GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT The petitioner assailed Ext.P1 assessment order for the year 2013-2014. When Rs. 26,67,060/- was imposed as additional tax besides interest, the petitioner company filed an appeal and invited the Ext.P2 order. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part and directed the petitioner to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiterating the earlier assessment-that is, the penalty and interest stood reaffirmed. 3. Now, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the assessing authority to re-hear the matter, as held in the Ext.P2. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that there was a "communication gap" and that the petitioner could not produce the evidence before the assessing authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. But the petitioner neglected. 7. True, the petitioner's plea of "communication gap" is evasive. Further, the assessing authority, too, issued a notice on 11.05.2018, requiring the petitioner to appear and place evidence. Only thus did the authority pass the Ext.P3 order on 16.05.2018. It is the petitioner's plea that if one more opportunity is given, the petitioner could demonstrate befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
