The reassessment notice was issued to the assessee. The Assessee filed a petition seeking to quash the\u00a0 order and notice issued on ground that said order was passed by relying on completely ineligible and unreadable documents and without granting sufficient time to respond to notice was in violation to principle of natural justice. Dismissing the petition the Court held that the\u00a0 Revenue had furnished legible copies of documents based on which reopening was initiated to assessee at initial stage itself. The reassessment notice was issued on the basis of one of alleged supplier of assessee had made a statement that he had not carried out transactions with assessee which were appearing in his bank account.\u00a0 High Court held that in view of testimony of supplier a prima facie case of escapement of income was made out and thus, matter was to be proceeded further and Assessing Officer was to decide matter on its own merits. Court observed that \u201cIt is settled law that ‘principle of natural justice is no unruly horse and no lurking land mine’ as held by Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in\u00a0Chairman, Board of Mining Exam & Chief Inspector of Mines\u00a0v.\u00a0Ramjee\u00a0[1977] 2 SCC 256. In fact, in\u00a0S. Tikara\u00a0v.\u00a0State of M.P.\u00a0AIR 1997 SC 1691, it has been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be petrified or fitted into rigid moulds. They are flexible and turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the questions that arise are whether there has been any unfair deal by the respondent?\u201d (AY. 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchase-Non supply of clear and legible copies-Cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings-Three working days to file reply-Natural justice not violated-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148(d), 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-31751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-8g7","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31751","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=31751"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32400,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31751\/revisions\/32400"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}