{"id":30078,"date":"2022-10-04T12:12:18","date_gmt":"2022-10-04T06:42:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/urmila-v-ito-2022-446-itr-511-raj-hc\/"},"modified":"2023-02-05T19:09:54","modified_gmt":"2023-02-05T13:39:54","slug":"urmila-v-ito-2022-446-itr-511-raj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/urmila-v-ito-2022-446-itr-511-raj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Urmila v. ITO (2022) 446 ITR 511\/ 218 DTR 60 \/ 328 CTR 734(Raj.)(HC)\/Surya Prakash v.ITO 2022)446 ITR 511\/ 218 DTR 60 \/ 328 CTR 734 (Raj)(HC)\/Vaijanti Dadhich v .ITO ( 2022)446 ITR 511\/ 218 DTR 60 \/ 328 CTR 734 (Raj)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Held that\u00a0 the authority would be obliged under the law to decide this very objection with reference to the relevant material, which had been placed before it by the assessees as also by collecting other material including the bank transactions, slips, statements and specific record and reasons on the objection raised by the assessees that the income chargeable to tax was less than Rs. 50 lakhs as there was only single transaction of Rs. 34,01,000 and not two transactions as stated in the proceedings under section\u00a0148A. Though the notices under section\u00a0148A\u00a0were issued to the assessees to file their response within the statutory period of seven days, the assessees had applied for adjournment but the materials placed did not show any extraordinary grounds for seeking adjournment. The orders passed under clause (d) of section\u00a0148A\u00a0did not refer to the request made for adjournment by the assessees. Matter remanded.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Request for adjournment to file response not granted-Assessing authority obliged to decide dispute in respect of a mount involved in transaction with reference to  material submitted by assessee.  [S. 148, 149, Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7P8","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30078"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30078\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32497,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30078\/revisions\/32497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}