Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. This was again reiterated by this Court in the case of Parathasarathy Chitra Vs The Income Tax Officer in W.P(MD).No.10445 of 2022, dated 14.07.2022. The relevant portion from the order reads as under:

“12. Considering the submission and perusal of the material, it is seen that the petitioner sent a representation on 11.04.2022. The reply with the documents annexed to it has been uploaded in the Departmental portal. In the reply, the details were given how the petitioner over a period of time made all the fixed deposits initially at Tuticorin and thereafter, at Chennai and further along with the bank statement records uploaded in the portal with hash value. In the order, dated 19.04.2022, there is no reference. It is clearly stated in the impugned order inner page 2 paragraph 4, it is recorded that the petitioner had not sent any reply on or before 11.04.2022 and further in view of the same, nothing has been considered and discussed in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file any additional reply and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis documents in support of their contention in addition to the earlier reply, dated 11.04.2022. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's reply and give her an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law thereafter.” (emphasis supplied)