JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Writ petitioner approached this Court with multiple reliefs: –

(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction particularly directing upon the respondents to show cause as to:

(i) Why the order has been passed manually?

(ii) If the order has been passed manually on 31.03.2022, why was it not uploaded on the very same day, which is mandatory?

(iii) Why there is no DIN number in the order impugned?

(iv) Why DIN number was generated on 01.04.2022?

(v) Why the order was uploaded on 03.04.2022?

(vi) Why the corrigendum was issued on 11.04.2022?

(B) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction holding and declaring that the service of order to an Assessee, can be carried out only in terms of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 127 of Income Tax Rule and any order served otherwise, is not recognized in the eyes of law and vitiates the intended proceedings:

(C) Consequent upon showing cause if any and on being satisfied that the entire proceeding having become time barred and the purported order dated 31.03.2022, which although has been passed on 03.04.2022, since antedated and since suffers from various anomalies, the entire proceedings be held to be time barred and the order impugned dated 31.03.2022 be quashed and set aside.

(D) Consequently, the respondents be directed to forthwith refund the amount of Rs. 36.59/- lakhs from the bank account of the petitioner, realized during the pendency of appeal at learned ITAT, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi.

3. The brief facts of the case as enumerated in the writ application is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of coal and has been carrying out the said business for more than 15 years. For the period i.e., Assessment year 2014-2015 corresponding to previous 2013-2014, the petitioner filed its Income Tax Return declaring a total income of Rs. 3,68,490/-. However, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notices were issued to the petitioner u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. In the audited balance sheet certain inadvertent error had crept in and the same was duly rectified by the petitioner much prior to initiation of any proceeding; the said revised audited balance sheet has never been rejected.

4. On 17.10.2016, notice under section 142(1) of the act was issued for production of books of accounts. On 08.11.2016, the second notice under section 142(1) was issued. The claim of the petitioner in relation to the actual sundry creditors was rejected and the total credit of Rs. 2,34,64,368/- was added to the income of the petitioner as unexplained investment in the business vide order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 143 of the Act followed by a notice of demand dated 29.12.2016 issued to the petitioner wherein a sum of Rs. 1,06,57,240/- was imposed as tax for assessment year 2014-2015. Pursuant thereto, a show cause notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act was also issued as to why penalty be not imposed.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the Assesse before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), vide Appeal No. CIT (A), Ranchi/10410/2016-2017, wherein by an ex-parte order dated 31.08.2018, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred 2nd appeal before the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 01.10.2018 vide I.T.A. No. 316/RAN/2018.

6. During pendency of appeal before the tribunal, the petitioner was served with appeal effect order under Section 251 of the Act along with demand u/s 156 dated 15.10.2018. A notice for issuance of penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of the Act, was also issued, fixing the date of compliance on 12.12.2018. In the penalty proceedings, a final order had been passed on 14.01.2019 fixing the date of compliance on 01.02.2019 and on the very same day, the learned assessing authority had issued a notice u/s 226(3) of the Act for realization/recovery of the impugned demand from the petitione