2025 (7) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the 1st respondent bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1074587335(1) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for the assessment year 2022-23 consequently to quash the assessment order dated 13.02.2024 and for consequential orders to quash the computation sheet, demand notice, notice of penalty or in the alternative direct the 1st respondent or the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner bearing Appeal No. NFAC/2021-22/10335181 and to refund the amount deposited under protest. 2. Petitioner is an individual, who is registered as an assessee under the provisions of the Act bearing PAN No. ACSPP1326Q.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....required information or objections during the assessment proceedings. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte assessment order dated 13.02.2024 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(B) of the Act. The said order disallowed certain claims made by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished the requisite details. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he became aware of the assessment years when only respondent No.3 informed him of the same through telephonic conversation. 5. Learned counsel further contends that though the assessment orders were sent to the former Auditor of the petitioner, it is onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner filing of Form No.35 and providing correct email address as on 29.03.2024, but the communication address dated 01.08.2024 and 09.08.2024 do not reflect the correct email ID of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, he seeks indulgence of this Court. 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel Sri M. Tirumalesh and Smt. Roopa representing the respondent/Revenue sustain the impugned order and submit that the notices have been sent through the email address furnished by the petitioner at the first instance and the same is in accordance with law. The petitioner ought to have corrected the email address at the first instance, even if he has changed his Auditor and thereafter the appeal proceedings, the petitioner having participated ou....