9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its counsel and accountant made a mistake in filing the return. Thereafter the Assessing officer passed the in the proceeding u/s 148. while passing the order u/s 264 the Commissioner held that the revised return filed by the petitioner was bogus and not authenticate on the verification report. On a writ petition contending that the order u/s 264 by the Commissioner was not sustainable on the ground that (1) verification report was not furnished (2) authorities did not consider the revised return. Held that- (1) as the verification report not submit to the petitioner it is violation of principle of natural justice. (2) the petitioner had filed the revised return, therefore, the finding in the order that it was bogus and not authentic coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount payable to the sub-contractors in connection with erection work entrusted to them was Rs. 51,28,374.29 out of which she was required to deduct tax of Rs. 31,734 from payments aggregating to Rs. 26,44,536. The petitioner made the requisite deduction and deposited the same on different dates by June 30, 2004. It has been stated that the petitioner had entrusted the work relating to filing of annual TDS return as also the income-tax return to a learned advocate. She had also employed an accountant who from time to time interacted with the said learned advocate and made available such information and documents as the petitioner's advocate required. It has been submitted that the annual TDS return was filed on September 9, 2004 and usual in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Durgapur, respondent No. 2, to ascertain the authenticity of the annual return of deduction of income-tax in Form No. 26C. Pursuant thereto respondent No. 2 submitted a verification report dated January 16, 2009 which finds mention in the order passed under section 264 of the Act. While passing the order under section 264, respondent No. 1 had held that revised annual return was bogus and not authentic as per the verification report furnished by the Assessing Officer, respondent No. 2 and, thus, the contention of the petitioner was not accepted. According to the petitioner, the order dated February 18, 2009 passed under section 264 of the Act by respondent No. 1 is not sustainable on two grounds that a copy of the verification report was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which fall for consideration are whether (i) the verificationreport was furnished to the petitioner. If not, whether there was violationof natural justice, and (ii) whether the revised return was on record. 8. So far the first issue is concerned, it is an admitted position that thoughrespondent No. 1 while passing the order under section 264 had relied onthe verification report dated January 16, 2009, copy of the same was notfurnished to the petitioner. Since copy was not furnished, the petitionerwas not aware of the contents contained therein. Thus, she could not dealwith the said report. In my view, since while passing the order the verification report was relied on, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 tofurnish copy of the same to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
