9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.03.2021 passed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as assessment order dated 30.10.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Lucknow-1 (respondent no.1) contained in Annexure no.10 and 4, respectively, to the writ petition. The petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to impose penalty in pursuance of the notices issued for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and also not to recover the tax imposed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, during the pendency of the instant writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Ram Nagar Degree Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition). He argued that though the said reply of the petitioner was received by the respondent no.3 either on 21.09.2021 or 22.09.2019 but the respondent no.3, without considering the reply of the petitioner, completed the assessment proceedings on 30.10.2019, assessing total income of the petitioner as Rs. 77,43,320/-. Thereafter, another notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A, 271F and 271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 has been issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner on 30.10.2019, against which, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the respondent no.1, in which, on 27.02.2021, the respondent no.1 issued notice to the petitioner, requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent no.3/assessing authority himself in reply to the report sought by the respondent no.1 has categorically admitted that the reply of show cause notice was received on 22.09.2019 but since the return in response to the notice under Section 142 (1) dated 11.03.2018 was not filed by the petitioner and as such, the ex parte assessment proceedings have been completed for the assessment year 2017-18, which is arbitrary and illegal. He also argued that while passing the impugned ex parte order dated 18.03.2021, none of the grounds taken by the petitioner were adjudicated and the impugned order is a non-speaking order and also violative of principle of natural justice. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn attention towa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended that ample opportunity has been granted to the petitioner for filing reply in the revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act but the petitioner has never filed any reply therein, hence the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 has been passed. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 reveals that the respondent no.1, while passing it, has not recorded any speaking reason for dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 has only been passed on the ground that the assessee/petitioner has failed to submit any reply in response to the office letter re-fixing the case. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
