TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For the Respondent : Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri Government Advocate (Tax) ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 24.11.2016 passed in respect of assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The challenge made agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all referred to in the impugned proceedings, for which, the petitioner has already filed a reply dated 18.01.2016. d) The impugned order was not at all served on the petitioner, even though it was made on 24.11.2016. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions, after inviting this Court's attention to the relevant proceedings viz., the notice dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 24.12.2013, thereafter, another notice was issued on 28.12.2015, for which the petitioner sent a reply on 18.01.2016 stating that they have already submitted their reply on 24.12.2013 along with supportive documents and therefore, the proposal may be dropped. However, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order by stating two reasons viz., (i) that the assessee did not prove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposal was issued to the petitioner stating those reasons for imposing tax. Further, it is seen that the said notice of proposal does not indicate that the Assessing Officer has proposed to impose penalty as well. In the absence of such notice, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order of assessment imposing penalty also at the rate of 150%. Therefore, the imposition of penalty without any....