TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , respondent has passed the impugned order. The entire basis for the impugned order is the sworn statement of Mukesh Choksi. Unless petitioner is given opportunity to have his say in the mater with regard to the said statement and its contents, it cannot be said that petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned order is passed without providing any fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There was absence of fair and reasonable opportunity and such an assessment order could not be sustained and could be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. See MR. ASHOK MITTAL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [ 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner invites the attention of the court to the representation/application filed by him on 31.01.2014 before the respondent requesting to issue copy of the sworn statement of one Mr. Mukesh Choksi on the basis whereof, proceedings were re-opened. It transpires that a search had been conducted by the income tax authorities at Mumbai on M/s. Mahasagar Securities and Mukesh Choksi Group. At that time, Mr. Mukesh Choksi had admitted to have made accommodation entries in his books to enable the clients to declare speculation profit/loss, shorter gains, etc., and had identified the petitioner herein and certain others as some of the beneficiaries of the fraudulent entries/transactions by giving a sworn statement in that regard and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying the petitioner regarding basis of the transaction that petitioner is said to have entered into with Mukesh Choksi, respondent has passed the impugned order. The entire basis for the impugned order is the sworn statement of Mukesh Choksi. Unless petitioner is given opportunity to have his say in the mater with regard to the said statement and its contents, it cannot be said that petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Hence, it has to be held that the impugned order is passed without providing any fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 7. In fact, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
