9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.1 as well as the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : 2.1 The petitioner had filed its return of income on 16.9.2010 declaring total loss of Rs.9,68,63,129/- and brought forward loss of Rs.31,01,36,103/-/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly, order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.1.2013 assessing total loss of the petitioner at Rs.5,35,90,266/- and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act at Rs.15,44,41,136/-. 2.2 Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was sought to be reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 dated 30.3.2017 on the belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was replied by the petitioner by way of its objection letter dated 6.4.2021 stating, inter-alia, that no proceeding in its case is pending and further, the petitioner filed its return for the assessment year 2010-11 on 16.9.2010 and, therefore, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act can be issued to the petitioner after six months from the end of financial year, in which the return was filed. 2.7 That no response to the aforesaid objection was received by the petitioner from the Assessing Officer till date. However, the petitioner has received a show cause notice on 14.3.2022 proposing the variation in the assessed income by respondent No.1. On perusal of the said notice, it was realized by the petitioner that the said notice was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33/- being alleged bogus purchase of Rs.25,04,72,276/-, alleged ineligible CENVAT credit of Rs.2,48,45,453/- and VAT of Rs.45,07,004/- and thereafter, a demand notice under Section 156 of the Act dated 28.3.2022 was issued, raising demand of Rs.1,64,324/-. 2.8 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs : "A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the assessment order passed by Respondent No.1 u/s.144 r.ws 263 r.w.s. 144B dated 28.03.2022 at Annexure-L and demand notice u/s. 156 of even date at Annexure-M. B) This Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the revenue authorities failed in providing personal hearing through video conferencing. He further pointed out that no notice under Sections 142 and 143(2) as mandated by Section 144B of the Act was issued before issuing the show cause notice dated 28.3.2022. Mr.Shah further submitted that even the direction and mandate issued by the Principal Chief Income-Tax Commissioner to carry out fresh re-assessment proceedings, was not followed by the respondent No.1 and thereby, the entire re-assessment proceedings culminated with prejudicial mind and predetermine mind. (2) Mr.Shah further submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer of raising huge demand without providing opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 144B(7)(vii) is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced on record, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned order dated 28.3.2022 can be said to be legal and justified? 8. So as to decide the aforesaid question, in our considered opinion, the undisputed facts are required to be taken note of. It is the say of the petitioner that while passing the re- assessment order, the effective opportunity of hearing was not given during the course of argument. Learned advocate Mr.Raval for the revenue could not dispute the said fact by filing any affidavit along with the concrete material and/or falsify the statement made by learned advocate for the petitioner. Meaning thereby, contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no effective opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is the duty cast upon the authorities in faceless assessment, if there is a demand for personal hearing, the same deserve to be granted. Keeping in mind the mandatory provision, if the facts of the present case is considered, indisputably, the request made by the petitioner for personal hearing through video conferencing at that stage was acceded to, however, intimation thereof was sent after the time of hearing was scheduled. Admittedly, on the second time, the request of the petitioner for granting personal hearing through video conferencing, intimation there of was to be given one day advance, was not either acceded to or taken care of by the revenue authorities and straightway, the impugned order was passed. Thus, in our considered o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
