Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2020 (2) TMI 658

..... ssessing Officer, on 19.12.2006. But the assessee has not adduced any fresh evidence nor made any request for cross examination of the loan creditors. In addition, he only sought time. Since there existed a direction for time bound disposal of the matter, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment under Ext.P5(a). Ext.R1(a) produced by the department would reveal that Ext.P5(a) order of assessment was served upon the assessee along with a demand notice, in January, 2007. Thereafter, the matter was kept ignored by the 1st petitioner/assessee till 2011. Even though a fresh copy of Ext.P5(a) was served at the request of the assessee in the year 2011 itself, the above writ petition was filed only in the year 2013, when the sale proclamation .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... dmitted, the appellate authority shall deal with the matter independently, to the extent it is admitted under law. - W.A. No. 114 OF 2020 - 28-1-2020 - C.K. ABDUL REHIM AND T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ. APPELLANTS BY: ADVS. SRI. K.I. MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI. R. JAIKRISHNA KUM. NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS BY: SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Legal heirs of deceased 1st writ petitioner, who were the writ petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.11199/2013, are the appellants herein, challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 19th December, 2019. Respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. Against Ext.P2 order of assessment finalised against the deceased 1st writ petitioner, with respect to the assessment year 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... th Ext.P5(a) order of assessment, no notice of demand as contemplated under Section 156 of the I.T. Act was issued. But the said contention was controverted by the Department(Revenue) on producing Ext.R1(a), which would substantiate that a demand notice was served along with Ext.P5(a) on the assessee in the year 2006 itself, which he had received on 03.01.2007. Therefore the learned Single Judge had refused to interfere with Ext.P5(a) order of assessment, by observing that the challenge is made at a highly belated stage. It was categorically found that, various adjournments were given by the Assessing Officer after remand of the matter through Ext.P3 order, and the assessee had not cooperated with the proceedings; nor had he taken any steps .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... t the request of the assessee in the year 2011 itself, the above writ petition was filed only in the year 2013, when the sale proclamation notice was received pursuant to the recovery steps initiated. Therefore the learned Singe Judge was perfectly justified in declining interference. 6. We take note of the fact that, neither the assessee(deceased 1st writ petitioner) nor the appellants herein, who were the legal heirs impleaded in the writ petition, had taken any attempt to challenge the consequential assessment by availing the statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore there is every justification on the part of this court in refusing interference with the recovery proceedings initiated. This is more so, because the petitioners have failed in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

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

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||