2006 (7) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ils filed along with the objections dated April 21, 2006. In spite of repeated cautions made by this court as to the nature of the assessment framed by the assessing officers, the callousness with which the assessments are made has not stopped. The impugned assessment order is yet another example for the same. For the assessment year 2004-05, the assessing officer has issued proposal notice to the petitioner on April 5, 2006. Subsequently, on April 7, 2006, a revised notice has also been issued. In both the notices, the assessees were called upon to file their objections, if any, to the proposal. It is the case of the petitioner/assessee that on receipt of the notice by the petitioner, as required in the notice, objections dated Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment file before this court. The learned Government Pleader produced the assessment file, wherein the objections of the petitioner which is dated April 20, 2006 is very much available at page No. 191 of the file. It is also crucial to note that the date of receipt has also been incorporated by the respondent by their own seal on April 20, 2006 thereby indicating that the objections have been received by the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Saligramam Assessment Circle, the respondent herein. In order to prove that this document has been handed over to the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also annexed in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition the delivery note. Now that the ver....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pain of looking into the objections raised by the petitioner for the proposal notice and pass appropriate orders. In the absence of any other answer, the one and only conclusion is, the total perversity on the part of the respondent-assessing officer. Because of his whimsical and laconic order, a huge amount of Rs. 60 lakhs has been thrust upon the assessee, which is unwarranted and uncalled for. Such assessment made the petitioner to rush up to this court by filing the writ petition, but for a cavalier act of the respondent-assessing fficer, a fair and reasonable assessment would have been passed based on the materials on record and this sort of approaching this court by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction would have been averted by ....