TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolation of principles of natural justice in as much as no reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner, further the order is made invoking Section 37 and 40 of the Act, instead of referring to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) thus, contrary to Instruction No.3 dated 10.03.2016. 2. Case of the petitioner: i) The impugned order of assessment has been made on 30.09.2021 after issuing the petitioner a notice on 27.09.2021 calling upon the petitioner to submit its objections on or before 30.09.2021 at 11.30 a.m. Documents were submitted by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 around 04.06 p.m. However, the same has not been considered apparently in view of the fact that the time granted on 30.09.2021 was only till 11.30 a.m. The impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment by invoking Section 37 and 40 of the Act, overlooking the fact that in respect of international transactions with associated enterprises where the transactions are in excess of Rs.5 crores would require reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer in terms of Instruction No.3, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Private Limited reported in (2019) 108 taxmann.com 213 SC, wherein the above Instruction No.3 has been referral to with approval. The order insofar as it fails to refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer is contrary to Instruction No.3 and unsustainable. 3. Case of the respondents: Sufficient opportunit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by that time, the assessment was completed. The petitioner has come up to this court questioning the validity of the order of assessment dated 25th March, 1967, primarily on the ground that he had no fair opportunity to explain his case and collaterally also on other grounds which revolve on facts. ...... 5. I am not inclined to go into the merits, as I am fairly satisfied that the petitioner did not have an effective opportunity to state his objections and sustain his case that the goods in question cannot once over be subjected to tax, as, in law, they are liable to sales tax at one single point. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fixation of time-limit during the working hours of a notifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TNGST Act, 1959. However, even while dealing with the assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present digital era, the above principles have been reiterated on more than one occasion by this Court. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the order of this Court in W.P.No.145 of 2020 Dated 07.01.2020, wherein it was held as under: "2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.11.2019 which was passed pursuant to the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act on 17.12.2019. The notice was digitally signed by the Assessing Officer at 4.59 p.m on 17.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to furnish the details by 11.30 a.m. on the following date on 18.12.2019. The petitioner responded to the same, the following dat....