JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the IT Act, has challenged an order of assessment for the assessment year 2006-07, which is dated 29th December, 2011 on the ground of the same being in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to have filed his return for the aforesaid assessment year declaring his total income at Rs. 44,15,276/-. The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,19,840/- and 31,61,564/- as short term capital gain. 2. The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued to the petitioner on 19th June, 2007. The petitioner claims to have received the notice on 25th June, 2007. Later notice under section 142(1) was also issued and served on the petitioner. 3. The Assessing Officer also issued notices to Calcutta Stock Exchange under section 133(6) of the IT Act, after which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that the short term capital gain in respect of sale of scripts of "Srinidhi" was not properly shown and that a false claim of such short term capital gain had been made by the petitioner. The short term capital gain on the script "Srinidhi" of Rs. 32,52,162/- was proposed to be disallowed and added as income of the petitioner from undisclosed sources. 4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The concerned share broker, Rajendra Prasad Saha, was also summoned, but he avoided the hearing. The response of the petitioner was not accepted and the claim of short term capital gain of Rs. 35,52,162/- was rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment which was dated 31st December, 2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-30. The appeal was, however, dismissed. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 11th March, 2011, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of assessment and remanded the proceedings to the Assessing Officer for reassessment after giving the petitioner the opportunity to establish that the petitioner had paid Securities Transaction Tax. 7. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 11th March, 2011, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of assessment and remanded the proceedings to the Assessing Officer for reassessment after giving the petitioner the opportunity to establish that the petitioner had paid Securities Transaction Tax. 7. The Learned Tribunal found on facts that the concerned contract note showed that the broker had collected the Securities Transaction Tax, but it was not evident whether the broker had paid the Securities Transaction Tax to the appropriate authority. 8. Pursuant to the order of the learned Tribunal, reassessment proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order, commenced. Notices under section 133(6) of the IT Act were issued to the broker, M/s. Rajendra Prasad Shah and also to the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd. to prove the genuineness of the payment of the Securities Transaction Tax. The impugned order of assessment records that both M/s. Rajendra Prasad Shah and Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. sent their replies to the notices under section 133(6) of the IT Act. On perusal of the reply of M/s. Rajendra Prasad Shah it was observed that Securities Transaction Tax had been deducted by the share broker from the sale consideration. However, on perusal of the reply of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd., it was seen that no transaction had been executed through the Stock Exchange by the said share broker, M/s. Rajendra Prasad Shah. 9. Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the reply of the Calcutta Stock Exchange on the basis of which the Assessing Officer held against the petitioner, was never furnished to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Saraf, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the department, however, submits that the reply was submitted. However, it is not disputed that the reply was submitted at a subsequent date. 11. Reliance on documents without opportunity to an assessee to make submissions on the same, most certainly contravenes principles of natural justice. The impugned assessment order cannot, therefore, be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed. 12. However, it is not disputed that the reply was submitted at a subsequent date. 11. Reliance on documents without opportunity to an assessee to make submissions on the same, most certainly contravenes principles of natural justice. The impugned assessment order cannot, therefore, be sustained and the same is set aside and quashed. 12. The Assessing Officer shall, within 30 days from the date of communication of this order pass an order of reassessment after giving the petitioner further opportunity of hearing and after supplying the petitioner with copies of all documents on which the Assessing Officer intends to place reliance. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not sell, transfer, alienate and/or dispose of any of his assets, immovable or movable and/or encumber the same in the meanwhile. 13. The writ application is disposed of. 14. Affidavits not having been called for, the allegations in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.