2018 (6) TMI 1204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. 3. Challenge to the impugned orders is mainly on the ground that neither the objections or documents given by the petitioners were considered by the Assessing Officer nor the explanation given by them before the Inspecting Team have taken note off. The petitioner has also raised another contention challenging the authorization for conducting an audit in the business premises of the petitioner on the ground that the Commissioner has not authorized the same and therefore, the authorization by the Joint Commissioner is without jurisdiction. 4. This contention is liable to be rejected in the light of the decision of this court in the case of M/s.Empress Audio v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essing Officer did not consider the reply given by the petitioner, which is noted in the sworn statement below the tabulation. Therefore, when the respondent issued show cause notice, he should have also taken note of what the petitioner had stated before the Enforcement and cannot mechanically issue a show cause notice. This is a fundamental error committed by the Assessing Officer. 9. The petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notices has submitted a comprehensive reply dated 16.08.2017. Apart from other details mentioned in the reply, the petitioner has reiterated that they have submitted details, documents and explanation with regard to each of the defects pointed out by the Enforcement Group and without taking note of the details, d....