TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 sale proclamation notice dated 30.3.2013 as it is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to reassess and make a fresh assessment as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam in his Exhibit P3 order after hearing the petitioner giving him sufficient opportunity to explain his case." 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original petitioner, who has since passed away was under treatment of schizoaffective disorder and Schizophrenia till his death on 14.12.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the statements relied on and that the opportunity to crossexamine the creditors. On these grounds, the assessment was set aside by Exhibit P3. The assessing officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after giving copies of the cash flow statement and the statements recorded from the loan creditors of the assessee and allowing for cross- examination of the creditors, if so desired by the petitioner. The assessee was permitted to adduce fresh evidence, if any. The assessing authority was directed to examine the same before passing fresh assessment order. 4. It is stated that nothing was done thereafter. The petitioner had submitted Exhibit P4 letter dated 29.11.2011, stating that he had not received any copy of the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner submits that the challenge to the impugned order on the ground that it was not received and that no notice preceeded it are withdrawn. The only surviving question is with regard to legality of Exhibit P5(a), which is an appealable order. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then submit that Exhibit P5(a) was not preceded by any pre-assessment notice. It is further submitted that the letter issued to the petitioner after Exhibit P3 proceedings did not contain a fresh cash flow statement, but only referred to the cash flow statement as contained in Exhibit P1 original order of assessment which had been set aside in Exhibit P5(a). It is stated that no fresh evidence is relied on by the assessing officer and the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, copy of the sworn statement recorded from the assessee and copies of the sworn statement recorded from the loan creditors were issued to the assessee and the assessee was required to be present on 8.5.2006 to offer comments on the cash flow statement and to produce evidence in support of his case and if he so requires, to produce and cross-examine the loan creditors. It is stated that on 13.12.2006, another letter was issued posting the case on 19.12.2006. It is submitted that the assessee appeared on 19.12.2006, but did not adduce any fresh evidence or make available the loan creditors for cross-examination. He only sought time. It is in the above circumstances that Exhibit P5(a) assessment order had been issued. 8. It is clear that ....