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 Orders Under Section 148A(d); Petitioner Can Submit Late Reply and Additional Documents Within Two Weeks.</h1> <h3>Shri Shankar Reddy Battala Hanumappa Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, rep by Additional / Joint /Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhil; The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Chitradurga, Karnataka; The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka And Goa, Bengaluru</h3> The court partially allows the petition, quashing the impugned orders issued by the second respondent under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Validity of Reopening of assessment - petitioner contends that, though reply with documents is filed upon receipt of notice u/s 148A(b) the impugned order is passed primarily on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the reply - HELD THAT:- If the provisions of Section 148A of the IT Act do not stipulate that the reply must be filed within the time allowed in the notice under Section 148A[b] of the IT Act but the response is filed before the date of order u/s 148A (C), the second respondent should have been considered. Crucially, in the present case, the observation is that the Assessee has not filed any reply at all. Therefore, this Court must intervene and allow the petition on this limited ground directing the second respondent to consider the reply and pass proceedings afresh under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act with the Department being entitled to all consequential extension in the limitation. Thus order passed u/s 148A(d), the Notice u/s 148 and all the impugned consequential demands/penalty notices are quashed. The petitioner challenges the second respondent's order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the order was based on the petitioner's failure to submit a reply, despite having done so before the order was issued. The court finds that the Assessing Officer should have considered the petitioner's reply, even if not submitted within the specified time frame. As a result, the court allows the petition in part, quashing the impugned orders and granting the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional documents within two weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
