The Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order on the basis of information received from the investigation wing Assessing the income of the appellant company at Rs .9, 59 ,95, 749 on 3- -12 -2016 as against returned income was nil . \u00a0In the year 2020 when the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 179 against one of the \u00a0Director , the assessee came to know \u00a0that the ex-parte order \u00a0was passed against the company . The Revision application filed by the one of the Director \u00a0against \u00a0an order under section 179 \u00a0of the Act \u00a0was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income tax .The Director has filed writ petition against the said rejection order and also writ against the ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer against the company . \u00a0Allowing the petition \u00a0of the company the Court held that \u00a0\u00a0the notices that were sent to petitioner came back undelivered with the endorsement \u201cLeft\u201d. The Assessing Officer\u00a0 appears from the \u00a0order, was racing against time because the matter would have got time barred and therefore passed the \u00a0order. \u00a0High Court set aside the ex-prte order and also order rejecting the revision application against the order under section 179 of the Act . Directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant . \u00a0(WP L .No. 13837 of 2023 dt . 25 -9 -2023 ) ( AY. 2009 -10 ) (Uma Devesh\u00a0 Ajmera v .UOI\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0(WP.No. 2496 \u00a0of 2023 dt . 25 -9 -2023 ) \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 144 : Best judgment assessment \u2013 One time settlement – Order passed in the years 2016 \u2013 High Court set aside the ex- parte order \u2013 Directed the Assessing Officer provide all the evidences and recorded reasons -Directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order .[ S. 147 , 148,179, 264 , 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-37673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9ND","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37673","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=37673"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37674,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37673\/revisions\/37674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}