23.As pointed out earlier, the learned Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition largely referring to the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the Assessing Officer in Para Nos.16 to 20. Some of those paragraphs particularly deal with the statements of law, however, with regard to the averments in Para No.17 of the counter affidavit, the assessee had specifically stated that the averment that the case was selected for limited scrutiny, is factually wrong, as it is evidenced by the entire assessment records already available with the Assessing Officer, which were referred to by the assessee in the objection letter, dated 12.05.2018, and a copy of the first reply letter, dated 30.08.2013, filed before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings, was also enclosed as Annexure to the objection letter dated 12.05.2018. Further, the assessee had rebutted the averments in Para No.18 of the counter affidavit, by giving full details regarding the professional receipts and that the credit of TDS on those credits was claimed in the hands of assessee, was absolutely false. The details in this regard have also been furnished in the rejoinder affidavit in Para No.18. Likewise, the averments in Para Nos.19 and 20 of the counter affidavit have also been denied and it was pointed out that the assessee had submitted copies of the Bank statements, as well as documents evidencing the sale and purchase of the property, and all the transactions were duly routed through the Bank and the statement of accounts were furnished and examined by the Assessing Officer and it cannot be stated that those aspects were neither called for nor examined. These averments were never tested by the learned Writ Court for its correctness, but the learned Writ Court solely relied on the averments in the counter affidavit, which have been controverted and denied by the assessee, by giving full particulars.
