TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2005-06 (U.P./ Central) (Annexure-4 to this writ petition) (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notices dated 28-4-2009 issued by respondent no.3 under section 21(2) of the Act for assessment year 2005-06 (U.P./ Central) (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition) (iii)Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or prohibition prohibiting/ restraining the respondent no.3 from any further action for reassessment in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 25-4- 2009 passed by the respondent no.2 and in pursuance of notice dated 28- 4-2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 (U.P./ Central)" 02- The facts enumerated in the present writ petition are as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the assessing officer for making reassessment for the assessment year 2005-06 under section 21(2) of the Act. The said notices were served on the petitioner on 24-4-2009 (evening) fixing the date for appearance and explanation on 25-4-2009. In compliance to the notice issued by respondent no.2 the petitioner appeared and submitted adjournment application to adjourn the date fixed on 25-4-2009 to some other date for the compliance of notice dated 24-4-2009, but the respondent no.2 did not entertain the application and passed the impugned order dated 25-4-2009 under the proviso to section 21(2) of the Act and granted permission to the respondent no.3 to make reassessment for the assessment year 2005-06. 06- In pursuance to the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed an application for adjournment, but the same was not entertained by respondent no.2. The said allegation has been denied by the respondent. 12- Be that as it may, this Court fails to understand as to why, by notice dated 24-4-2009, date of hearing was fixed immediately on the next day i.e. 25-4-2009 Atleast some reasonable time should have been given to the petitioner to file his explanation before respondent no.2. It is not expected from the petitioner to file his reply in less than 24 hours before respondent no.2.Undue haste and speed with which respondent no.2 has exercised his jurisdiction under section 21(2) of the Act in our opinion should discouraged. The doctrine of fairness is complementary to the principle of natural justic....