2022 (5) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the National Highway 544, Ettimadai, Coimbatore-641 112. The petitioner is regular in filing her Income Tax Returns along with taxes due thereon. As per the notice issued by the respondent department, on 10.03.2022, the petitioner- Assessee furnished the sales register, purchase register, cash book, bank statements and cash ledger to substantiate her case. Thereafter, assessment order was passed by the respondent on 16.03.2022. The petitioner-Assessee invoking Section 69A of the Act, 1961 made addition to the taxable income to the tune of Rs.92,15,300/- under the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Thereby, a notice of demand dated 16.03.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 under Section 156 of the Act 1961 as well as separate Notice for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (6) of the Act, 1961, without assigning any reason in mechanical manner. The respondent has no authority to insist 20% of the disputed amount as 'condition precedent' to consider the application under Section 220(6) of the IT Act. The petitioner-Assessee being an aggrieved person, who is deprived of personal hearing in violation of principles of natural justice, has been slapped with the impugned order in arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manner. Therefore, challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 28.04.2022, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the respondent is contrary to law. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in a case where the assessee is in appeal before the CIT (A) , he should pay 20% of the disputed demand. Following the aforesaid procedure, the respondent sent a letter dated 28.04.2022 requesting the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand outstanding. He would further submit that as per 5. On a perusal of the records, it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending with the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking for stay till the disposal of the first appeal. To the petitioner's application, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, asking the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand outstanding i.e. Rs.22,78,019/- and after the payment of the same, t....