Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Three C Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 11 June, 2021

Bench: Rekha Palli, Amit Bansal

                                                     Via Video Conferencing
$~23
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 5912/2021
       THREE C HOMES PVT. LTD.
                                                              ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr.Rishabh Jain, Advocate.

                          Versus

       ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL
       CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI
                                                 ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Sr. Standing
                              Counsel

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

                    ORDER

% 11.06.2021 CM.APPLs.18641/2021, 18642/2021 & 18643/2021(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5912/2021

3. The present petition seeks to assail the assessment order and notice of demand dated 1st June, 2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

According to him, the Show Cause Notice leading to the impugned order was received by the petitioner only at about 08:00 PM on 28th May, 2021; immediately whereafter, a request for extension of time for submission of reply was made by petitioner, in response, whereto, an acknowledgement was received from the respondent on 31st May, 2021. He submits that the respondent, however, hastened to pass the impugned assessment order on the very next day i.e. 1st June, 2021 and therefore, contends that the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his plea, he places reliance on a decision dated 27th May, 2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5491/2021.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, vehemently opposes the petition by contending that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. He submits that the alleged communication dated 31st May, 2021 ("Annexure P-4" to the present petition) which is the basis for filing of the present petition, has not originated from the office of the respondent and therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. In view of the serious objection raised by the respondent regarding the authenticity of the document annexed as "Annexure P-4", the petitioner is granted two weeks' time to file an additional affidavit clearly stating the source of this communication, along with an appropriate affidavit under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no action is likely to be taken against the petitioner till 1st July, 2021 on the basis of the impugned order.

8. In these circumstances, list the petition before the Vacation Bench on 30th June, 2021.

(REKHA PALLI) VACATION JUDGE (AMIT BANSAL) VACATION JUDGE JUNE 11, 2021/A WP(C) 5912/2021 Page 3 of 3