9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 3. Given the directions that we propose to pass, Mr Sharma says that no counter-affidavit is required to be filed, and that he will rely on the documents presently available with the Court. 4. This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 5. The following allegation is levelled against the petitioner: "...During the F.Y 2016-17, Smt. Pooja Gupta had transferred an amount to the tune of Rs. 55,00,000/- in the Axis Bank A/c No. 913020038218249 owned and controlled by Sh. Atul Tyagi for entry purpose. Thus, the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction remain unverified." 6. The case made out against the petitioner/assessee pivoted on a statement made by one Mr Atul Tyagi, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted a minimum of seven days to the petitioner to submit her response. 9.1 For this purpose, our attention is drawn to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 03.08.2022 framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [NFAC]. Mr Lalchandani places reliance on the following part of the SOP: "N.1.3 To ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity to the assessee, timelines to be given for obtaining response to the SCN shall be: N.1.3.1 Response time of 7 days from the issue of SCN. N.1.3.2 Response time of 7 days may be curtailed, keeping in view the limitation date for completing the assessment..." 10. In sum, Mr Lalchandani says that there has been a breach of the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position by providing only twenty-four hours to the petitioner to file a response. Perhaps, a couple of days more could have been given, having regard to the narrow timeframe that was available to him. More importantly, in this case, since the petitioner has taken the position that she has not entered into a transaction with Atul Tyagi, it was incumbent upon the AO to furnish relevant material which would in the very least, prima facie, demonstrate that the assertion was believable. 17. Thus, having regard to the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the best way forward would be to set aside the impugned assessment order, with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh order, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply. 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
