TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 at 6.30 p.m., this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent ought to have given due consideration to the reply dated 24.03.2022 sent by the petitioner in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022, however since the same has not been given due consideration and that too when the impugned order has wrongly disclosed the name of Muktha Seth and wrong PAN number has been given whereas the petitioner's name is Devarajulu Jayakothandaraman and his PAN number is different, this Court is of the considered view that by total non-application of mind and by violating the principles of natural justice, the second respondent has passed the impugned order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and has errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015-2016. Section 148 of the Act deals with the issuance of notice by the Department to the petitioner where the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment. 3. The petitioner has raised the following grounds challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A of the Act:- (a) The impugned order issued by the second respondent is a nullity and the same has no relevancy to the petitioner's PAN number though in the notice the name of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as Muktha Seth, whereas the petitioner name is Devarajulu Jayakothandaraman. (b) The petitioner has not replied on 24.03.2022 to the notice sent by the second respondent under Section 148 of the Act on 17.03.2022. According to the petitioner, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the allegations of the petitioner. They reiterated the contents of the impugned order as well as the impugned consequential notice. They have stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the same was at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This Court cannot go into the merits of the controversy. According to them, the present writ petition is pre-mature and instead of the petitioner participating in the impugned proceedings, this writ petition is filed pre-maturely. 5. However, in the counter affidavit, they have admitted the fact that the name of the assessee has been wrongly mentioned in the impugned order and they claim that it is a typographical mistake committed by them. They reiterated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent on 30.03.2022 as seen from the acknowledgement card. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced photocopy of the postal receipt dated 25.03.2022 which confirms that the reply dated 24.03.2022 sent by the petitioner to the second respondent was dispatched on 25.03.2022. The second respondent has also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by them before this Court that the reply dated 24.03.2022 was received by them only on 30.03.2022. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the second respondent only at 6.30 p.m. on 30.03.2022 as seen from the impugned order. Only during office hours on 30.03.2022, the second respondent would have received the reply dated 24.03.2022 sent by the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested the second respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 17.03.2022. In the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 as well in the consequential impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 issued by the second respondent, the reply dated 24.03.2022 sent by the petitioner is not reflected and the same has not been taken into consideration by the second respondent before passing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022. Having received the reply even prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 at 6.30 p.m., the second respondent ought to have considered the same on merits and in accordance with law. Even in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dated 31.03.2022 to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order as well as the consequential notice will have to be quashed by this Court and remand it back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. 11. Since the petitioner claims that he was not given sufficient time to send detailed reply to the notice dated 17.03.2022, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to send additional reply to the one already sent on 24.03.2022 to the second respondent. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 as well as the consequential order dated 31.03.2022 issued by the second respondent are hereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
