TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., 19.12.2016. 2.1.The writ petitions pertains to the Assessment Years (in short, AY) 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2.2.By virtue of the order passed, pertaining to AY 2008-09, the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax, in the sum of Rs. 15,72,911/-, after requisite adjustments, along with penalty, amounting to Rs. 4,72,732/-. 2.3.Similarly, in respect of AY 2009-10, the petitioner has been mulcted with tax, amounting to Rs. 31,53,912 and penalty, amounting to Rs. 4,21,336/-. 3.The record shows that revision notices were issued to the petitioner. These are notices which are dated 23.09.2016. The petitioner, apparently, sought a month's accommodation for furnishing a reply in the matter. This communication which was sent by the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner could have no grievance qua the impugned orders on this score. In other words, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had sought an accommodation for a period of one month, which was given, since, the impugned orders were passed well after the period of one month had passed, they were valid in the eyes of law. 7.I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8.The primary grievance of the petitioner is that there has been breach of principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity was not given to represent his case. 9.Undoubtedly, the Circular dated 20.04.2001 in certain circumstances requires the respondent/ assessing officer to deal with the application. This aspect is exempl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where he stood qua his request for accommodation. It is for this reason that it was incumbent on respondent/ assessing officer to consider the request for accommodation. 10.The petitioner is, in my view, right in contending that he had no clue as to whether or not his request for adjournment had been considered. Therefore, quite naturally, as contended before me, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would have been taken by surprise, when the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the orders were passed after a period of one month had expired, which is the period of accommodation sought for by the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner did not get addressed, which is that he had no ....