TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s.Accurate Enterprises, a proprietory concern. During the financial year 2016-17, the Central Government brought out the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016 on 08.11.2016, cancelling the legal tender status of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 denomination currency notes with effect from 31.12.2016. The Central Government enabled exchange of Demonetized Currency Notes between 09.11.2016 and 30.12.2016 in Banks and Post Offices. For the assessment year 2017-18, corresponding to the Financial Year 2016-17, the petitioner filed its return of income under the Income Tax Act, on 01.11.2017. The petitioner's case was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS for the assessment year 2017-18. A notice dated 30.07.2019 was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand. The petitioner then approached the respondent to enquire the reasons / basis for the adjustment demand. The petitioner was informed that an assessment order dated 29.12.2019 was passed for the assessment year 2017-18 and taxes dues in terms thereof was adjusted. When the respondent was questioned about the service of the order, it was informed that the assessment order was sent to the petitioner's Chartered Accountant's mail address, a copy of impugned order of assessment was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner on perusal of the assessment order dated 29.12.2019 found that the respondent based on alleged information concluded that the petitioner had made cash deposits of a sum of Rs. 4,22,84,000.00/- from midnight....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged service of the assessment order to the e-mail address of petitioner Chartered Accountant is invalid. c) Importantly, it was submitted that one of the Bank Accounts viz., Current Account No.101697440267 of State Bank of India, MKB Nagar Branch, Chennai-39, which has been treated as unexplained income in the hands of the petitioner does not relate to the petitioner instead the said account is related to the Electricity Board. Thus, the impugned order of assessment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. 5. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is the address of the Chartered Accountant which is found in the assessee profile in the portal and therefore one cannot find fault with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, wherein, it was held that whenever there is a demand, the same may no longer be in the realm of notice and would suffer from the vice of pre-determination. The relevant portions reads as follows: ''9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262], but the question herein has....