9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the assessee under the Income Tax Act under Permanent Account No.AACFM8098A that they have been regularly paying the return of income in keeping with the provision of the Income Tax Act for the year ending 2020-2021. The petitioner had filed its return of income on 15.02.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.8,14,880/- and tax to the tune of Rs.2,54,244/- was paid. Thereafter, on 08.03.2022, the petitioner had received an E-mail from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), calling upon the petitioner to provide a reply to the notices issued by the NFAC. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n opportunity to put forth their explanation and submit documentary evidence. The petitioner would further submit that a sum of Rs. 4,83,90,847/- under the head of alleged sundry creditors, had been taken into account, for which the petitioner was neither put on notice nor an explanation sought for. Therefore, the petitioner had come forward with the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order primarily on the ground that (a) they were not given an opportunity to put forth their case and submit their documentary evidence. (b) the procedure under Section 144(B) had not been followed, since a real time alert have not been given to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 144(B). The petitioner had come to learn about the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act to comply with the real time alert as contemplated under the Act. He would, however, submit that the issue on hand that as against the impugned order, the appellant is entitled to file an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Act and without awaiting the appellate remedy, the petitioner has wrongly approached this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 7. The petitioner's claim is that they have not been served with the prior notice and have been prevented them from putting forth their case. This statement appears to be incorrect in the light of the proof of mail communications submitted by the learned counsel for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
