9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be pleased to quash and set aside the assessment order dated 26.8.2024 (Annexure A) passed by the Respondent and the consequent demand as well as penalty notice. (B) The Hon'ble Court may direct that in the remand proceedings, the assessment in the case of the petitioner may be conducted by a different assessing officer. (C) The Hon'ble Court may restrain the Respondent from initiating any coercive action against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition." 2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was reconsidered in impugned assessment order dated 26.8.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 - Assessment Unit which is faceless entity. 3. The petitioner filed the return of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. [13] Considering the facts of the case, we are left with no other option but to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order and remit the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration and to pass a fresh assessment order after providing all the relied upon documents like the reply received pursuant to the notice and summons issued under Section 133 (6) of the Act as well as the other relevant documents of the parties who did not reply to the summons providing opportunity of cross-examination, if requested, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, fresh de novo assessment order may be passed in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements were recorded during survey." e) In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; "material" as distinguished from "evidence" which includes direct and circumstantial evidence." 6. It seems that the respondent Assessment Unit was annoyed by the directions issued by this Court and therefore, have tried to justify for refuting the claim of cross examination by the petitioner relying upon the decisions whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
