The petitioner already had been granted three opportunities, as per Section 73, therefore, respondent did not consider the adjournment letter and
proceeded to pass the assessment order. The petitioner also had filed a rectification petition under section 161 along with all the records. The
petitioner relied on the proviso to section 161 and submitted that before passing any orders opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
The High Court observed that even though the officer was not empowered to grant further adjournment, he ought to have recorded the adjournment
letter submitted by the petitioner, reject the same and thereafter ought to have passed an order. Even though the respondents had no power to
grant adjournment, the court had the power to direct the respondents to grant one more opportunity by taking into the fact of voluminous transaction.
Therefore, the court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity. The High Court also observed that
filing application under Section 161 with all records, also indicated that the petitioner was bonafide in seeking time to furnish all the records and
thus the Court was of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to one more opportunity. The High Court observed that while passing
the rectification order, the respondent has not followed the proviso stated under section 161. Therefore, Court was of the considered opinion that
before passing the order, respondent should have granted personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, while passing rectification order there is
violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned orders were set aside but since the tax liability is huge, the State cannot be
made to suffer by the attitude of the petitioner as well, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) for each year. On such deposit, the respondent was required to re-do the assessment.
Case Referred- Pinstar Automotive India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, in W.P.No.8493 of 2023, dated 20-3-2023, reported
in 2023(3) TMI 1168,