TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 972
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent No. 1 dated 21st March 2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- a. The Petitioner is an individual and was engaged as an agent for supply of raw chilled milk. According to the Petitioner, this business was started sometime in October 2016 in Ahmednagar. This included procuring milk from milk producers/farmers, testing the milk, and thereafter forwarding the milk to the Milk Collection Centre. The Milk Collection Centre would make payment in cash to the Petitioner for the quantity of milk procured, and in turn, the Petitioner would deduct his commission from the amount and transfer the balance amount to the milk producers/farmers. This business was carried on in the name of M/s. D ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Several notices thereafter were issued to the Petitioner under Section 142(1) of the IT Act. It is the case of the Petitioner that all the notices and other documents received were forwarded by him to his Chartered Accountant. However, since his Chartered Accountant was due to get married, he did not respond to the notices issued. To this effect, an affidavit was filed by the Chartered Accountant before Respondent No. 1 in the revision proceedings under Section 264 of the IT Act, which is found at page 131 of the Petition. Since, no reply was filed in the course of the assessment proceedings, a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the IT Act was passed on 19th December 2019 against the Petitioner, wherein the entire amount of Rs. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but to deposit the same in the bank account and thereafter make payments to the farmers. The Petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to admit the additional evidence. The Petitioner also requested Respondent No. 1 to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Petitioner also sought an opportunity to represent his case through a personal hearing. i. Respondent No. 1 issued another notice on 14th February 2022, wherein the Petitioner was required to justify as to how the conditions of sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 264 had been complied with. In response thereto, the Petitioner filed a reply on 16th February 2022 explaining how the conditions of sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 264 had been duly complied wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed in the course of the revision proceedings. On the contrary, Respondent No. 1 has stated that the Petitioner did not furnish any reliable documentary evidence to prove that the cash deposited during demonetisation was on account of receipts from sale of milk. He also submitted that a personal hearing was sought, and on 14th March 2022 the Petitioner had sought some time to appear personally. If, according to Respondent No. 1, the matter was getting time-barred on 31st March 2022, he could have issued a notice rejecting the request for adjournment and directing the Petitioner to appear on some other day before 31st March 2022. However, this was not done. Be that as it may, he submits that before the Principal Commissioner, the Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the impugned order, especially paragraph 6 thereof, it is very clear that Respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the documentary evidence filed by the Petitioner in the course of the revision proceedings. The Petitioner had filed a cash transaction summary, which was uploaded on the Income tax portal on 2nd March 2017, wherein he had disclosed the cash deposits to be out of receipts from sale of raw chilled milk. Further, he had also filed an appointment letter dated 1st October 2016 issued by Navnath Milk Traders, as well as delivery challans containing tanker number, details of milk loading and unloading, including specifications relating to the quality of the milk. The delivery challans are for the period 25th October 2016 to 8th No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 passed under Section 264 of the IT Act, as well as the Assessment Order dated 19th December 2019 passed under Section 144 of the IT Act, are quashed and set aside. (B) The consequential notice of demand, penalty Show Cause Notices and the notice for attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner are also quashed and set aside. (C) The matter is remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall deal with and consider the submissions as well as the evidences filed by the Petitioner. (D) Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be granted to the Petitioner, including an opportunity of a personal hearing. (E) If any Show Cau....