TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts noted in record between 16.01.2019 and 01.03.2019 do not satisfy that opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner. Likewise admittedly there is no hearing after 01.03.2019 to make good the deficiency in affording opportunity of hearing prior to 01.03.2019. The argument that objections filed on 01.03.2019 do not warrant hearing, is subjective and R1 could not have assumed that hearing would be nothing but an empty formality. On the ground that without giving petitioner opportunity of hearing on the objections filed in this behalf, Ext.P1 order is set aside and the matter restored to file of respondent No.1. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 21.08.2019. The respondent on 21.08.2019 or on any othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 Of 2019 is filed questioning Ext.P1 assessment order dated 25.03.2019 made under Section 25(1) for the assessment year 2011-2012. The other writ petitions are filed pursuant to the assessment orders passed for the different assessment years. 3. To briefly state the respective writ prayers, the following tabular statement is prepared and incorporated. Serial No Writ petition No Assessment year Exhibits 1 11770/2019 2012-2013 Ext.P1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and should have given opportunity of hearing before an order under Section 25(1) of the Act is passed. The respondents do not dispute the Statutory obligation to afford personal hearing to petitioner in re-assessment under Section 25(1) of the Act. But the reply given is that the objection stated on 01.03.2019, do not in any way show that a new case is made out against the proposed assessment warranting personal hearing by respondent No.1. Therefore, the Assessing Officer felt that affording opportunity of personal hearing would be an empty formality, keeping in mind the opportunities already afforded to petitioner as stated in Ext.P1 order. 4.2 From the original record the chronology of events is stated thus: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is in fitness of things that respondent No.1 ought to have given a clear date for hearing the writ petitioner upon receiving objection dated 01.03.2019 and thereafter passed Ext.P1 order. Issues now re-assessed are fairly complex and the financial implication resulting from the proposed assessment is substantial as well. Under those circumstances the events noted in record between 16.01.2019 and 01.03.2019 do not satisfy that opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner. Likewise admittedly there is no hearing after 01.03.2019 to make good the deficiency in affording opportunity of hearing prior to 01.03.2019. The argument that objections filed on 01.03.2019 do not warrant hearing, is subjective and R1 could not have assumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
