petitioner was requested to submit details vide notice dated 20.09.2021 which this Court is informed is under Section 142(1) of IT Act. Writ petitioner sent a detailed reply vide e- proceedings response acknowledgment on 20.09.2021 itself. Adverting to this reply, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner comes from disadvantaged economic background and is enrolled in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner, with the intention of augmenting her income had inter alia purchased some tractors in public auction and sold the same to agriculturists/farmers and the monies were deposited in her bank account. To be noted, inter alia this has been articulated in writ petitioner's reply dated 20.09.2021. More importantly, writ petitioner has filed affidavits which according to the writ petitioner are affidavits from various farmers, who have purchased these tractors from writ petitioner. Notwithstanding all this, though the impugned order says that the reply of the writ petitioner-assessee has been perused, there is nothing to demonstrate that the affidavits or supporting material have been considered. Adverting to paragraph No.4 of the impugned order, learned counsel submits that it is not just terse but it is laconic and learned counsel says that reason is the soul of an assessment order but is absent in impugned order.
