Court sets aside order under Income Tax Act, directs fresh consideration for petitioner. The court set aside the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19 and notices under Sections 148 and 148A(b) due to failure to ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court sets aside order under Income Tax Act, directs fresh consideration for petitioner.
The court set aside the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19 and notices under Sections 148 and 148A(b) due to failure to consider the petitioner's response sent via email after portal closure. The assessing officer's decision was based on cash transactions in the petitioner's bank account, leading to the court directing a fresh consideration with a personal hearing for the petitioner's representative. The court's decision aimed to ensure procedural fairness by allowing the petitioner a proper opportunity to respond and participate in the assessment process.
Issues involved: Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19, challenge to notices under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Act, failure to consider petitioner's response, setting aside the impugned order for fresh consideration.
Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged an order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19, along with notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) required a response by 28.03.2022, but due to portal closure, the reply was sent via email on 29.03.2022, which was not considered by the assessing officer while passing the impugned order.
2. The assessing officer's order indicated that income of Rs. 1,03,24,000/- had escaped assessment based on cash deposits and withdrawals from the petitioner's HDFC Bank Ltd. current account. Due to the short timelines and non-consideration of the petitioner's reply, the court decided to set aside the impugned order and directed the assessing officer to reconsider the petitioner's response and pass a fresh order.
3. The court ordered the assessing officer to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative and subsequently issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and pending applications were closed accordingly.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the court's decision to set aside the order for fresh consideration, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to respond and be heard in the assessment process.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
