{"id":47164,"date":"2024-10-17T12:31:06","date_gmt":"2024-10-17T07:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jaipal-reddy-amireddy-v-uoi-2024-299-taxman-186-telangana-hc\/"},"modified":"2024-11-07T18:25:13","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T12:55:13","slug":"jaipal-reddy-amireddy-v-uoi-2024-299-taxman-186-telangana-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jaipal-reddy-amireddy-v-uoi-2024-299-taxman-186-telangana-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Jaipal Reddy Amireddy v. UOI (2024) 299 Taxman 186\/339 CTR 302   (Telangana.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessing Officer issued on 17-3-2022 a show-cause notice upon assessee asking for an explanation on draft assessment order forwarded to assessee under section 144C. Assessee gave his reply on 19-3-2022. Thereafter, again Assessing Officer made a correspondence vide notice under section 142(1) calling upon assessee to furnish accounts on or before 23-3-2022 and documents specified in annexure to notice.\u00a0 Assessee gave his reply on same day and another response on 30-3-2022. However, before same could be appreciated by Assessing Officer,\u00a0 assessment order was passed on 30-3-2022. On writ the Court held that\u00a0 since for assessment year 2014-15, show-cause notice was issued on 17-3-2022 and time limit for response was up till 20-3-2022, this duration was too short a period, particularly, when explanation and details had been sought of an assessment year about seven to eight years old, and therefore, proceedings drawn by Assessing Officer seemed to be in a hasty manner without a reasonable opportunity being given to assessee. therefore,\u00a0 assessment order is\u00a0\u00a0 set aside and matter is\u00a0 t remanded back for fresh consideration. (AY. 2014-15)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 144B :Faceless Assessment-Draft assessment order-Principle of natural justice-Order  is passed without considering the reply-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 144C,  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-47164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cgI","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47164","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=47164"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47674,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47164\/revisions\/47674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}