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 quashes Assessment Orders for lack of petitioner participation, directs new order issuance within 90 days</h1> <h3>Fifth Field Realtors P Ltd. (Rep. by its Director Smt. Sarada Sundaramurthy) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-2 (2), Chennai Income Tax Department, Chennai, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai</h3> Fifth Field Realtors P Ltd. (Rep. by its Director Smt. Sarada Sundaramurthy) Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, The Income Tax ... Issues:Challenge to Assessment Orders under Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, Failure of Personal Hearing via Video Conference, Validity of Impugned Order, Quashing of Orders, Directions for Reassessment.Analysis:The petitioner contested the Assessment Order dated 28.09.2021 issued under Section 147/155 r/w Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitioner received a Show Cause Notice along with a Draft Assessment order, requesting a personal hearing for oral submissions. However, due to technical difficulties accessing the ITBA portal on the scheduled dates, the petitioner was unable to participate in the video conference for the personal hearing. Despite the petitioner's reply and subsequent communication from the Income Tax Department, the impugned assessment order was passed before the rescheduled video conference date, raising concerns about due process.The Court acknowledged the petitioner's inability to engage in the personal hearing and the premature passing of the assessment order by the first respondent. Consequently, the Court deemed the impugned orders unsustainable and quashed them. In light of the dispute concerning the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the first respondent was directed to issue a comprehensive order based on merits and legal provisions within ninety days of receiving the court's order. Additionally, instructions were given to the Web Portal Administrator to enable the petitioner to submit any replies within 30 days and to schedule a video conference for the personal hearing. Subsequently, the first respondent was mandated to issue a fresh re-assessment order within thirty days following the aforementioned steps.In the final judgment, the Court allowed the writ petitions with the specified directives and observations, without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were consequently closed, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
