TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are hereby finally disposed of. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the assessments were made against the petitioner and consequent demand notices were issued without giving it an opportunity of being heard. He referred to the letter dated February 13, 1995, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e why prosecution proceedings should not be launched against it. So far as the second letter dated February 13, 1995, is concerned, it would show that the petitioner claimed exemptions against the permissible deductions, some of which are paid to its employees towards " uniform making, uniform washing and academic and research allowances ". These could not be claimed as permissible deductions. Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it its reply by a certain date. That reply should be construed to be a reply in reference to the offer made. Accordingly, we are of the view that the second letter dated February 13, 1995, can also be not treated to be a notice giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making assessment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned standing counsel for the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the Department initially insisted on giving only seven days' time and later on submitted that in any case it should not exceed a period of two weeks. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is granted three (3) weeks' time from today to file its reply to the various show-cause notices. It would....