TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned, unquestionably this has happened. The fact remains that the assessee would be totally in dark of the next date of hearing and therefore, if that has resulted into finalization of the assessment against the assessee, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, this Court needs to interfere by quashing and setting aside the order of assessment. Let the opportunity be given to the petitioner. We hereby restore the matter from the stage at which it was. Respondent is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner by granting time of two weeks to respond to the show cause notice from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let there be a specific date given of two weeks to the petitioner within which, the petitioner shall file his reply without asking for further adjournment. Thereafter, after following the due procedure, necessary order shall be passed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14461 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2022 - HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT MR TUSHAR HEMANI, LD.SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS KAMYA MANIT SHAH FOR THE PETITIONER MR VARUN K.PATEL, LD. STANDING COUNSEL WITH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quested for adjournment of at least 20 days for furnishing detailed reply. Draft assessment order since was issued on 23/04/2021 and within three days the reply was to be filed i.e. on or before 26/04/2021, it was not feasible for the petitioner to so do it because of Covid-19 pandemic situation and hence, he sought for 20 days time. It is the case of the petitioner that he waited for the respondent to reply or to issue a fresh notice for fixing next date of hearing in view of the adjournment application. However, no such fresh notice was received by the petitioner. The son of the Accounts Head of the petitioner also tested positive with Covid 19 on 01/05/2021 and he was under home quarantine. Because of this, Accounts Head of the petitioner could not attend the official work as they were residing under the same roof. 5. It is further say of the petitioner that Income Tax Department was going to launch its new e-filing portal on 07/06/2021, which was aimed at providing convenience and seamless experience to the taxpayers. Hence, vide notification dated 20/05/2021, CBDT informed the stakeholders that in preparation for the aforesaid launch and for migration activities, existi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced : 5. Before adverting further, the relevant dates necessary for adjudication are as under: Sr. No Date Particulars 01 22.9.2019 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued wherein the petitioner was requested to file his reply on or before 17.10.2019. 02 09.10.2019 The petitioner submitted its response. 03 23.11.2020 Notice under Section 142(1) was issued and the petitioner was requested to furnish its reply on or before 4.12.2020. 04 4.12.2020 06.02.2021 The petitioner submitted its responses to the notice dated 23.11.2020. 05 16.02.2021 21.02.2021 The Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to furnish certain details. 06 23.02.2021 The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani assisted by Ms.Kamya Manit Shah for the petitioner, who has raised the grievance that no effective opportunity had been given to furnish the documents and to reply to the show cause notice and draft assessment order. Only three days time was granted while issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner making it returnable on 26/04/2021. The grievance is also made that the assessment had been finalised on the date, that had been extended by virtue of the notification dated 27/04/2021 up to 30/09/2021. It is also pointed out to this court, the request that was made earlier and the response given by the respondent. Also it is argued on merits, which we do not intend to touch upon. 9. Learned Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel has emphatically argued before us that no fresh letter for hearing was required as the onus was on the petitioner to file appropriate reply on time and more particularly, when time of 20 days had passed and no order had been passed. His request of 20 days had already been acceded to and even if he had not heard from the respondent, there was nothing to prevent him from filing reply. The order of assessment has been passed on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Insistence on the part of the respondent that the petitioner also could have been vigilant enough to make a request once again if he had not heard in 20 days time is surely worth noting and it is also noteworthy further that only after assessment order was passed after 50 days that he has woken up from his slumber. Without endorsing to that conduct of the petitioner, we need to categorically hold that, that hardly is a ground to deny an opportunity to the petitioner who was all throughout clueless on the next date of hearing. 12. From the chronological events, we see very clearly that in response to the request made by the assessee, nothing had been responded to in the National Faceless Assessment procedure. This is true, it has been brought into the effect for doing the things that makes the system very transparent. It has numerous advantages and at the same time, the authority is also required to be far more vigilant in responding to the request online here. The order sheet of the officer concerned shows that he has granted the time up to 10/05/2021 but, the same was never communicated to the petitioner. Although, he may not have intended that way, but due to either limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
