2024 (12) 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

.... Petitioner: By Advs. K. Krishna, Achyuth Menon. For the Respondents: By Advs. Jose Joseph, Senior Standing Counsel, Cyriac Tom, Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P13 order of assessment for the year 2016-2017. The impugned order dated 22.01.2024 is stated to have been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, petitioner seeks the intervention ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... but again the assessee failed to file any return of income. 3. According to the petitioner, the short term capital gain calculated by the Income Tax Assessing Officer as per Exhibit-P13 is erroneous and double the total sale consideration was taken by the officer without any basis, that too, on some vague information received by them, thereby creating a huge demand. It is also pleaded that, co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 148 of the Act issued thereafter is seen to have been delivered to the petitioner's email ID. After the faceless assessment scheme commenced sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner in the form of Exhibit-P7, Exhibit-P8, Exhibit-P9, Exhibit-P10, Exhibit-P11 and again by Exhibit-P12 show cause notice. Despite the above, petitioner did not respond, and thereafter, Exhibit-P13 assessm....

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 response to the notice under Section 148A(b) was submitted through that e-mail ID. Hence, notices issued to that e-mail ID cannot be said to irregular. 8. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not been granted notice of the proceedings. The repeated notices sent to the petitioner were met with a response once, which itself indicates that the p....