TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by registered post and also through e-mail but there was no response to any of those notices. The draft assessment order was also sent to the same e-mail, to which the petitioner responded and communicated with the respondent on 16.03.2022 itself, seeking time to file documents. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he is not in a habit of seeing the e-mails cannot be accepted. If that was so, the petitioner could not have responded so fast to the draft assessment sent on 15.03.2022. Therefore, the argument of learned Senior Counsel that there was total violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. It may be true that the petitioner herein would have to pay huge amount if the best assessment goes uncontested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) by the 1st respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed raising various grounds, more particularly that the order impugned came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The facts in issue are as under: The petitioner herein was involved in the Film Distribution business in the name of Sree Durga Theja Aswini Films in West Godavari District since 2014. The major components of his business relates to sales/receipts generated from the theatre collection and the sale of movie tickets. The petitioner also claims to have acted as Manager of his friend by name A. Mahalakshmi Rao, who was running a Bar and Restaurant. It is said that as he is not familiar with the Income Tax, did not approach any Tax Consultant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y e-mail. Thereafter, on 29.12.2021, another notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued by the 1st respondent giving time till 07.01.2022 to submit series of documents as mentioned in the Annexure. The petitioner did not respond to the notice for the reason that he was hospitalized between 08.12.2021 and 13.12.2021 and that he underwent surgery. On 09.01.2022, a notice under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the petitioner proposing to do best judgment assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 giving time till 17.01.2022 to file his response. This notice was issued as the petitioner failed to file his response to the earlier notices. A similar notice was also issued on 09.02.2022 giving time to reply till 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to support his claim. However, the impugned order came to be passed on 30.03.2022 raising a huge demand of Rs.1,22,52,792/- and also proposing to levy penalty by issuing separate notice. This order of assessing authority, dated 30.03.2022, is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition mainly on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the circumstances of the case and though a request for adjournment was made in the reply to the assessment order, no time was given. Hence, pleads that the order under challenge be set-aside and the matter be remanded to the Assessing Authority. 5. A counter came to be filed by the respondent disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be in electronic mode only, in case of the faceless assessment proceedings, the petitioner ought to have verified his e-mails. Insofar as the plea taken by the petitioner claiming that he was hospitalized and as such he could not respond to the notice, it is said that the hospitalization was from 08.12.2021 to 13.12.2021 and the notice was served on the petitioner on 29.12.2021 i.e., long after his discharge from the hospital. The averments in Para Nos.9 and 10 of the counter will show that in spite of service of notices issued, there was no response at all from the petitioner. Left with no other option, best judgment assessment came to be made on 15.03.2022. It is to be noted here that immediately after the draft assessment order was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the 1st respondents long prior to the said date. In fact, the notices were said to have been sent by registered post and also through e-mail but there was no response to any of those notices. It is also to be noted here that the draft assessment order was also sent to the same e-mail, to which the petitioner responded and communicated with the respondent on 16.03.2022 itself, seeking time to file documents. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he is not in a habit of seeing the e-mails cannot be accepted. If that was so, the petitioner could not have responded so fast to the draft assessment sent on 15.03.2022. Therefore, the argument of learned Senior Counsel that there was total violation of the principles of natural justice ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
