S. S. Traders Vs CIT (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Since assessee had an alternative remedy under Section 246A along with an application for condoning the delay under Section 249(3), if assessee was willing to file the required documents, the Court was inclined to come to the rescue of assessee by quashing the best judgment assessment order which was passed due to statutory limitation deadlines and remitting the case back to the fourth respondent.
Held: Assessee had challenged the assessment order issued pursuant to a notice under Section 142. The order was passed by the fourth respondent assessing authority after assessee failed to submit the requested documents, compelling the department to invoke Section 144 for best judgment assessment. Revenue submitted that the order was issued in order to meet statutory limitation deadlines. During the hearing, both assessee and the authority agreed that assessee had an alternate remedy under Section 246A, along with the option to seek condonation of delay under Section 249(3). On appeal. It was held that assessee was willing to file the required documents, the Court was inclined to come to the rescue of assessee by quashing the impugned order and remitting the case back to the fourth respondent to pass fresh orders on terms subject to assessee depositing 15% of the disputed tax within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within such time, assessee should upload the reply and documents which were not furnished by assessee, which had to be resulted in the impugned order, dated 11.02.2025 pursuant to the aforesaid notice. In case assessee complied with the above stipulations, the fourth respondent should pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter.
