AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Murali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 show cause notice under Section 143(2) of the Act proposing variation. The petitioner states that the petitioner was granted only three days' time to respond to the same. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 reply within the prescribed time. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering Ext.P7 reply passed Ext.P10 assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 contending that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time for filing reply to Ext.P6 notice.
The period stipulated in Ext.P6 notice for filing reply is only three days. Further, it is stated in Ext.P10 order that no response is filed by the petitioner to Ext.P6 notice. From Ext.P7, it can be seen that the reply has been duly acknowledged by the 2nd respondent. Since Ext.P10 assessment order has been passed without considering the response of the petitioner to Ext.P6 notice, I find that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner and complete the assessment in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.