TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside assessment order for 2013-14 over non-monthly returns. Petitioner must pay 20% tax. Remitted for reconsideration.</h1> <h3>Palaniyappa Mill Store Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> The court set aside the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 due to the failure to consider monthly returns, as required by Section ... Validity of assessment order passed - Assessment completed before expiry of assessment year - Held that:- Admittedly, the respondent has passed the impugned assessment order without considering the monthly returns - Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.3.2014 is set aside. This matter is remitted back to the respondent. The petitioner is directed to pay 20% of the tax amount on or before 09.7.2014 to the respondents and on such payment, the respondent shall pass fresh orders in respect of the assessment year 2013-2014, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount as stated above, the respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. Issues involved:Challenge to impugned order dated 28.3.2014 for assessment year 2013-14 based on failure to consider monthly returns, violation of Section 22(4) of Income Tax Act, opportunity for petitioner to present relevant documents, and request for setting aside the impugned order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28.3.2014 for the assessment year 2013-14, alleging that the respondent had completed the assessment for the entire year without taking into account the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that this action was legally incorrect and cited a relevant decision of the court to support the contention. The petitioner claimed that if given an opportunity, they could have provided relevant documents to convince the authorities. Therefore, the petitioner requested setting aside the impugned order, asserting a violation of Section 22(4) of the Income Tax Act.The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent contended that a notice had been issued to the petitioner, but no reply was submitted. However, the respondent acknowledged that the authority had not considered the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. In light of this, the respondent suggested remitting the matter back to the authority for reconsideration.Upon considering the submissions, the court observed that the impugned assessment order was indeed passed without taking into account the monthly returns, which was inconsistent with previous court decisions. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the impugned order. The court directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax amount to the respondents by a specified date, following which the respondent would reevaluate the assessment for the year 2013-14, providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case and ensuring compliance with the law. The court also warned that failure to make the payment would empower the respondent to take appropriate actions within the legal framework. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
