9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order and consequential actions] 2. Issue notice. Mr. Sunil Agarwal learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue. 2.1. Mr. Agarwal says that, in view of the directions that we intend to issue, he does not wish to file a reply, and therefore, will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court. 3. Thus, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at this stage itself. 4. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 15.06.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the assessment year (AY) 2017-2018. 4.1. Besides this, challenge is also laid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , given time only till 11:00 A.M. on 14.06.2021, which was a Monday. 5.4. The petitioner claims that, it was unable to respond to the aforementioned show cause notice dated 11.06.2021, as the e-filing portal, maintained by the revenue, was not functional. It is claimed by the petitioner that, even on 15.06.2021, when the impugned assessment order was passed, the e-filing portal was dysfunctional. 5.5. Concededly, via the impugned assessment order, the respondent/revenue has added, a part of the investments made by the nonresidential investors under Section 68 of the Act. The amount added to the petitioner's income is Rs. 51,28,18,774/-. The respondent/revenue has treated the said sum as, unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "GMO"] has not been furnished to the AO. 6.2. It is required to be noticed that the amount invested by the said entity (which is located in Japan) is Rs. 13,50,05,596/-. 7. Mr. Deepak Chopra, who appears for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that, every bit of information which was sought from time to time was furnished to the respondent to the AO. 7.1. Mr. Chopra says that, insofar as the FIRC concerning GMO is concerned, the same was not sought, and therefore, perhaps, was not furnished. It is Mr. Chopra's submission that, this information can also be furnished to the respondent/revenue along with the information sought for in the show cause notice dated 11.06.2021. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
