TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r made in the captioned application is to grant exemption from filing requisite court-fee and sworn/notarised/affirmed affidavit(s) along with the writ petition. The prayer made in the captioned application is allowed, subject to the petitioner depositing the requisite court-fee and filing sworn/notarised/affirmed affidavit(s), within three days of the resumption of the normal and usual work pattern by this court. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. W.P.(C) 5277/2021 and CM APPL. 16237/2021 4. Issue notice. 4.1 Mr. Puneet Rai, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Rai says that, in view of the directions that we propose to pass, he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit/reply and that he would argue the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 143(2) of the Act on 23.09.2019. Consequently, the petitioner's return was scrutinised pursuant to the said notice. The petitioner filed its reply on 05.11.2019. 7. Furthermore, the petitioner was also issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act between 11.12.2020 and 21.01.2021. The petitioner claims that it had filed replies qua various issues raised in the said notices. 7.1 In this behalf, petitioner has adverted to replies dated 28.12.2020, 14.01.2021, 16.01.2021, 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021. 7.2 It appears, the petitioner was also served with another notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 05.03.2021, to which, the petitioner, once again, claims that replies dated 12.03.2021 and 24.03.2021, were submitted. 8. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14.1 It is Mr. Jain's contention that the petitioner had asked for personal hearing via its application dated 27.04.2021, which was not granted, apart from respondent no. 1's unreasonable approach in not accommodating the petitioner, although the limitation for passing the assessment order had been extended by the CBDT till 30.06.2021. Submissions on behalf of the respondents: 15. Mr. Puneet Rai, who appears on behalf of the respondents, has contended that, as noted above by the Court, and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to respond qua various issues. 15.1 Mr. Rai, thus, contended that merely because the respondent no. 1 did not respond to the petitioner's request for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of respondent no. 1 in view of the fact that the impugned show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order dated 22.04.2021 has brought about a variation in the returned income of the petitioner. Conclusion: 17. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to allow the writ petition. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned assessment order, the notice of demand and the notice for initiation of penalty proceedings, are quashed. 17.1. Liberty is, however, granted to respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity of a personal hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner, qua the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment dated 22.04.2021. While granting the personal hearing, the respondent....