TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submissions and documents. The reason given by the Assessing Officer that the assessment was getting barred by limitation of time and further time cannot be given, is unjustifiable and improper. Hence, this Court finds that the action on the part of the authorities in refusing to give time to the petitioner for submitting further documents, is improper. This Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 21.03.2022. Accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply along with supporting documents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders by following the procedures as contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst respondent issued a notice dated 26.11.2021 under Section 142(1) of the Act. Since the assessment has been done in faceless manner, the petitioner immediately sent a reply through the Web portal. Due to technical glitch, it cannot be uploaded. Thereafter, again on 16.12.2021, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, followed by another notices dated 28.12.2021 and 30.12.2021, was issued. 3.Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to send his reply through E-mail on 01.01.2022, which cannot be done due to some technical defects. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a reply by speed post on the same day to the first respondent. Without considering the petitioner's reply, on 04.01.2022 the third respondent directed him to furnish his re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was noticed that the petitioner had purchased an immovable property on 04.07.2014 at Chennai, which consists of land and building, for a sale consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/-, excluding registration charges and stamp duty etc. As per Annexure 1-A of the sale deed, the value of the land is Rs.4,00,00,000/- and the building has been valued at Rs.2,50,00,000/-. Further, the petitioner had sold the property on 29.03.2016, for a sale consideration of Rs.6,85,00,000/-. On verification of the sale deed, it was found that the value of the land is mentioned as Rs.6,25,00,000/- and the building has been valued at Rs.60,00,000/-. The value of the building was also certified by the Assistant Engineer (Building Inspection) as Rs.60,00,000/-. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked, it is not being continued. Even grievance submission is not working (15-16 Assessment and 16-17 Assessment) PAN.AGQPR6044K. Repeated attempts made.'' The new E-filing portal of the Income Tax Department was launched on 7th June 2021 and during initial period, some technical glitches reported. Accordingly, the query was replied as under: ''There may be some technical issues. Please wait for few days and then try again. In case the issue continues, you may lodge a complaint by email.'' 6.The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner vide his E-mail, dated 01.01.2022, informed to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer that he was unable to respond through I.T. Portal. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation, which was not accepted and therefore, the petitioner was served with notice, for which, he had sent a reply on 17.03.2022, seeking 10 days' time to furnish further submissions and documents. The reason given by the Assessing Officer that the assessment was getting barred by limitation of time and further time cannot be given, is unjustifiable and improper. Hence, this Court finds that the action on the part of the authorities in refusing to give time to the petitioner for submitting further documents, is improper. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 21.03.2022. Accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit his reply along with suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
