2024 (10) TMI 1479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age of admission itself. 2. The challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the impugned orders passed by the respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short, 'the Act') dated 31.07.2024 for the Assessment Years 2003- 04; 2004-05; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10 and to direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 3. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are being taken from W.P.No.26838 of 2024, which are as follows:- i) Aggrieved against the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer for the AYs 2003-04; 2004-05; 2007-08; 2008-09 and 2009-10, the present filed an Appeal before CIT (Appeals) NFAC on 27.01.2009 and the said Appeal was par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t due to paucity of time, as the case is getting time barred on 31.07.2024, granted 5 days time to submit documentary evidence and though the petitioner sought time, the respondent passed orders giving effect order to the directions issued by CIT (Appeals) and ITAT on 30.07.2024, by rejecting the submission and details filed by the petitioner and very next date, i.e. on 31.07.2024 passed orders imposing penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, dated 31.07.2024, which necessitated the petitioner to file present Writ Petitions. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the same suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned Junior Standing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and ITAT vide orders dated 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, partly allowed the Appeal. 7.1 Thus, when the ITAT passed orders as early as on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, it is not known as to what prevented the respondent from acting in consequent to the order passed by ITAT immediately, rather than to wait till the fag end of six months' expiry time and to issue notice on one fine day, i.e., 19.07.2024, by quantifying the penalty amount and calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount, the petitioner, who has issued with such notice all of a sudden, sought for two weeks' time to putforth their contention and to file supportive documents, which the respondent refused to grant citing the expiry o....