Court sets aside communication, grants cross-examination opportunity. New date fixed. Fairness emphasized. Proceed with cross-examination.

The Court set aside a communication due to the alleged non-receipt by the writ petitioner, granting an opportunity for cross examination. A new date was fixed for cross examination of two individuals, with the writ petitioner's lawyer designated for the task. The Court clarified that this decision aimed to ensure fairness and did not indicate a stance on the case's merits. The writ petition was disposed with directions to proceed with cross examination, allowing the respondent to reissue communication for other matters post cross examination. No costs were awarded, and related petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Scrutiny assessment for Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018, Cross examination request for three individuals, Communication regarding cross examination, Allegation of non-receipt of communication, Setting aside the impugned communication, Fixing date for cross examination, Disposal of the writ petition.

Scrutiny Assessment:
The subject matter of the instant writ petition pertains to a scrutiny assessment for Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018. The writ petitioner sought permission to cross examine three individuals, out of which permission was granted for two individuals as the third individual had turned hostile.

Communication for Cross Examination:
The respondent claimed that a communication was sent to the writ petitioner on 03.06.2019, allowing cross examination of two individuals on 07.06.2019. However, the writ petitioner alleged non-receipt of this communication. Subsequently, another communication was sent on 28.06.2019 stating that the writ petitioner did not respond to the earlier communication, leading to the request for cross examination being treated as exhausted.

Allegation of Non-Receipt of Communication:
The pivotal submission of the writ petitioner was that the communication dated 03.06.2019 was never received, and it came as a surprise when the subsequent communication was received. The Court noted that there was no evidence to prove the service of the initial communication on the writ petitioner.

Setting Aside the Impugned Communication:
The Court set aside the communication dated 28.06.2019 to allow the writ petitioner an opportunity to cross examine the two individuals. This decision was made to ensure that the writ petitioner was not prejudiced by the alleged non-receipt of the earlier communication.

Fixing Date for Cross Examination:
By mutual agreement, a new date for cross examination of the two individuals, namely Shri.S.Nagarathinam and Shri.S.Murugesan, was fixed for 01.08.2019 at the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The writ petitioner's lawyer was designated to conduct the cross examination on the specified date, time, and venue.

Disposal of the Writ Petition:
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the directions to conduct the cross examination as scheduled. It was clarified that the setting aside of the impugned communication was solely for facilitating the cross examination and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case. The respondent was permitted to reissue the communication for other aspects post the cross examination process. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.

---