Court restrains respondent from acting on assessment order pending appeal. Petitioner granted right to challenge order physically.

The court restrained the respondent from acting on the assessment order until further notice. The petitioner's challenge regarding legal heirship was acknowledged, emphasizing the right to appeal under the Act. The court directed the respondent to provide instructions for the petitioner to challenge the assessment order physically, allowing a two-week window for filing. If the appeal was filed within the timeframe, it would be accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the disposal of the petition and a related Civil Application.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, notice of demand, and penalty notices based on legal heirship denial and lack of evidence of death certificate. Computer system not accepting appeal without proof of legal heirship. Petitioner seeking remedy under the Act to challenge proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order, notice of demand, and penalty notices dated 8th December, 2017, claiming they were issued based on his alleged legal heirship of Late Ms. Shobha Ahuja. The petitioner denied being the legal heir and faced difficulties in filing an appeal due to the absence of evidence like a death certificate. The court restrained the respondent from acting on the impugned order until further notice.

The Assessing Officer failed to address the petitioner's grievances despite the filing of an affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner's inability to file an appeal due to the computer system's rejection without proof of legal heirship or a death certificate was highlighted. The petitioner contended that the entire proceedings lacked a legal basis as he was not the legal heir of Ms. Shobha Ahuja. The court emphasized that the limitations of the computer system should not deprive the petitioner of his statutory right to appeal under the Act.

The court adjourned the case to allow the respondent to provide instructions on the procedure for the petitioner to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority. It was noted that filing a physical appeal in hard copy with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would be accepted by the Revenue, without invoking the plea of limitation. The petitioner was given a two-week window to file the appeal physically to ensure it would be entertained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of based on the understanding that if the petitioner filed a physical appeal within the specified timeframe, it would be accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Consequently, a related Civil Application was deemed infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

---