Court sets aside order in writ petition under Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2019-20. Petitioner granted extended response time.

The Court set aside the impugned order in a writ petition related to the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner was granted two weeks to respond to notices concerning alleged bogus purchases and transactions, as the statutory seven-day timeframe was not provided. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct a personal hearing and issue a speaking order based on the petitioner's comprehensive reply. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions for parties to comply with the digitally signed order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment concerns a writ petition related to Assessment Year 2019-20 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues revolve around notices issued to the petitioner regarding alleged bogus purchases from specific suppliers and a subsequent transaction with another entity, as well as the adequacy of the time provided for the petitioner to respond to these notices.

Bogus Purchases Allegations:
The petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding alleged bogus purchases from two suppliers, Jatalia Global Ventures Ltd. and RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd. The cumulative value of these transactions was significant. Subsequently, another notice was issued concerning a transaction with Reema Polychem Private Limited. The petitioner responded to both notices within the specified timelines.

Reassessment Proceedings and Timeframe for Response:
The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, triggering reassessment proceedings based on show-cause notices under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the reassessment was premature as adjudication under the allied statutes was pending. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the timeframe provided for responding to the RPPL transaction notice was insufficient, contrary to the statutory requirement of seven days.

Court Decision:
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was not given the minimum statutory timeframe of seven days to respond to the RPPL transaction notice. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, granting the petitioner two weeks to file a comprehensive reply to both notices. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct a personal hearing and pass a speaking order based on the petitioner's response. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with parties instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

---