9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax as being illegal, invalid, null and void, unjust, unfair and violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice; iii) Issue of a writ of certiorari or an order quashing the impugned minutes of meeting dated 11.11.2022 given to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 5 Local High Pitch committee (Annexure No - XV) whereby the grievance application preferred by the petitioner was rejected as being illegal, invalid, null and void, unjust, unfair and violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice; iv) Direct the Respondent No. 4 Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 to grant stay on recovery of taxes without payment of any tax in light of Instruction No. 1914 of 2016 (Annexure No - XVIII) dated 31.7.2017 in the interest of justice. 3. Petitioner claims to be businessman engaged in providing transport and logistic services in addition to real estate and renting services. 4. Petitioner claims to have filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 79,23,080/- and to have paid tax of Rs. 16,91,514/-. 5. Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded that the assessment is not high pitched. 12. Petitioner requested respondent 6 for copy of the reasoned order which is not provided to the petitioner. However, respondent 6 did share the copy of the minutes of the High Pitched Committee which would reveal that the material placed on record by the petitioner is not considered and the application is rejected by respondent 5 - Local High Pitched Committee in a mechanical manner. 13. Petitioner contends that he has also preferred second application for stay on recovery of tax which is pending with respondent 3-National Faceless Appeal Centre. The petitioner contends that he is served with notice dated 10.1.2023 which demands the tax. 14. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Ram Heda and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 Mr. Anand Parchure. We are not inclined to delve deeper in seemingly broader question raised in the petition. We note that the order under Section 143(3) read with the other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act is rendered on 11.11.2022. The petitioner has preferred an appeal under Part A of Chapter (XX) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is pending with the National Faceless Appeal Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice must be followed or the material on record must be considered in depth, need not detain us. Indeed, contentious as the submission is, we are not required to delve deeper. We note that personal hearing as such was not sought, and nothing is brought to our notice to suggest that a personal hearing is provided either under any statutory rule or then any guideline issued by the CBDT. 17. We may further note the revised instructions issued by the CBDT dated 23-4-2022 which provides for the constitution of local committees to deal with the grievance of very high-pitched scrutiny assessment. Paragraph-D articulates the action to be taken by the local committees on grievance petitions, and we may extract the same. "D. Action to be taken by the Local Committees on grievance petitions : (i) A grievance petition received by the Local Committee would be acknowledged. A separate record would be maintained for dealing with such petitions by the Member- Secretary. (ii) Member-Secretary on receipt of taxpayers' grievances of High-Pitched Assessment, will forward the same to the Chairman and Members of the Local Committee within three days of receipt of the grievance. (iii) The g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inder letter dated 03-2-2021 is responded belatedly and there is no compliance with the letter dated 26-2-2021. We may extract the reasons recorded by the High-Pitched Committee - "As can be seen from the table given above, that the Assessing Officer has given several notices to make the compliances. The assessee has made only one compliance dated 24-2-2021, which was considered by the A.O. Thus, the claim of the assessee that he had replied time to time stands incorrect. From verification of the reply/annexures given during his solitary compliance, it is noticed that the documentary evidence has been submitted in respect of non-taxable income of PPF interest of Rs. 47,860/-. The Assessing Officer asked further supporting documents in respect of balance addition in capital account vide letter dated 26-2-2021, but assessee did not make any compliance in this regard. As the assessee has not submitted supporting documents in support of his clarification dated 24-2-2021, the A.O. has left no other alternative, but to make the addition under head unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. In view of these allegation levied by the assessee that "all the relevant documents and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
