TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- i) The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'I.T. Act') and for AY 2018-19, he filed ITR-3 on 05.07.2018, declaring his gross total income at Rs. 7,37,340/-. However, the petitioner's case was selected for limited scrutiny under e-Assessment Scheme in respect to the issue of agricultural income and a notice under Section 143(2) dated 28.08.2019 was issued, which was followed by a show cause notice dated 04.03.2021, calling upon the petitioner to file reply through registered e-filing account on 15.03.2021. The petitioner, on receipt of such show cause notice e-filed response on 15.03.2021 at 07.58 p.m. along with supportive docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined cash under Section 68 of I.T.Act. Challenging the said assessment order, dated 30.07.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr.G.Baskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the assessment order was passed on 15.03.2021, and since the same was passed without even providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the same was challenged in W.P.No.8379 of 2021, and this Court vide order dated 01.04.2021, quashed the said order of assessment dated 15.03.2021 and remitted the matter back for re-consideration, and despite the same, the respondent, based on the earlier assessment order dated 15.03.2021, issued a notice of demand dated 01.02.2022, and the petitioner, on receipt of such demand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent that the petitioner's files were transferred from faceless assessment mode to physical mode for making assessment through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in terms of Section 129 of I.T. Act, the new Assessing Officer (AO) who took charge of the Office in the place of previous Assessing Officer is supposed to have informed the same, in which case, the petitioner would have asked for an opportunity for rehearing and without informing the petitioner with regard to the change of AO and without providing any opportunity, the impugned order came to be passed. 3.2 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order came to be passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and though the said order passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed by this Court, the same would be complied with by the respondent in accordance with law. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the earlier assessment order dated 15.03.2021 was quashed by this Court, in W.P.No.8379 of 2021 vide order dated 01.04.2021, since the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, and this Court, while quashing the impugned order of assessment has remanded the matter back to the respondent to pass a speaking order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 15.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing, passed the present impugned order of assessment dated 30.07.2022. 6.1 Further, it is seen that the Officer, who issued the notice and clarification letters dated 06.07.2022, 07.07.2022 and 19.07.2022 is not the one and the same, who passed the impugned order, and though it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner's case files were transferred from faceless assessment mode to physical mode to make assessment through the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer under Section 129 of I.T. Act and in terms of said Section, the respondent herein, being the Assessment Officer has passed the present impugned order of assessment, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner even the provisions of said Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase, it is evidently clear that after the petitioner filed reply dated 22.07.2022 to the clarification sought for by the respondent finally vide letter dated 19.07.2022, the petitioner has not been afforded with any opportunity of personal hearing and in these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed, which would per se prove that the order has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Even assuming that the impugned order is passed by an incumbent Officer, who continued the proceedings in the place of earlier Assessing Officer and even the earlier Assessing Officer, who existed before the incumbent Officer has not issued any notice for personal hearing after the petitioner's filed reply. Therefore, the....