SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
SRI BALLEKATTE SOMANNA THIPPE SWAMY – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent


The petitioner has challenged the validity of the

Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act dated 19.12.2019 for the Assessment Year

2017-18 and also the Computation Sheet at Annexure- A1.

The petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ of

certiorari to quash the Notice of Demand at Annexure- A2

issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act.

2.

The petitioner submits that pursuant to the Notice

issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act dated

19.07.2019, time was granted to file reply by 30.07.2019.

3

It is further submitted that a fresh Notice came to be issued

at Annexure- G once again on 17.12.2019 calling for reply to

be furnished by 21.12.2019. It is further submitted that as

regard to the Notice dated 17.12.2019, the petitioner had

made out reply, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure- J.

3.

It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has

proceeded to pass the Order of Assessment on 19.12.2019,

though as per Annexure- G time was allowed for furnishing

of reply till 21.12.2019.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue

submits that due to change in the incumbent, it appears that

Notice was issued once again as per Annexure- G and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top