TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an application made by the Assessee in this behalf, and such period given to the petitioner-assessee is excluded in computing the period of limitation for issuance of notice under Section 148A(d) of the Act in terms of the third proviso to Section 149 of the Act. In the present case, though the petitioner had filed an application for adjournment immediately after receipt of notice dated 17th March, 2022, the respondent had neither rejected the request for adjournment nor directed the petitioner to file a reply within the original stipulated time. By denying an opportunity of adequate time to the petitioner, the mandate of Section 148A(b) has been violated.Consequently, the impugned order dated 31st March, 2022 issued under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24th March, 2022 seeking extension of time to file a reply to the said notice. In the request, it was stated that since the petitioner company is listed on the stock exchange, it was then working to complete its statutory compliances scheduled to be completed before 31st March, 2022. In the said request, it was further stated that since the past financial records of the petitioner are stored in a factory in Uttarakhand, the petitioner required additional time to collate the said financial records. 4. The petitioner submits that, however, that though the request for extension was duly registered on the online portal, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act wherein at paragraph No. 4, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner had filed an application for adjournment immediately after receipt of notice dated 17th March, 2022, the respondent had neither rejected the request for adjournment nor directed the petitioner to file a reply within the original stipulated time. 8. By denying an opportunity of adequate time to the petitioner, the mandate of Section 148A(b) has been violated. This Court in the Divya Capital One Private Limited (earlier known as Divya Portfolio Private Limited) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Delhi Anr. in W.P.(C) 7406/2022 has observed as under: 13. It is pertinent to mention that Section 148A(b) permits the Assessing Officer to suo moto provide up to thirty days period to an assessee to respond to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
