9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for fresh consideration. - W. P. No. 9720 of 2013 & M. P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2013 - V. Dhanapalan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. Anita Sumanth For the Respondent : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda ORDER Heard Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-Company calls in question the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the respondent in PAN/GIR No.AABCG3714B, relating to Assessment Year 2005-06, seeking to quash the same. 3. Brief facts pleaded by the petitioner are as follows: (a) The petitioner is a Company incorporated in 2000 and engaged in the business of Real Estate including development of the same. They entered into an agreement with M/s.Chaitanya Builders for sale of certain property. The purchase of the property was solely funded by an entity, namely M/s. Wescare (India) Ltd. The proposed purchaser M/s. Chaitanya Builders defaulted in effecting payments, resulting in filing of O.A.No.465 of 2004 before this Court and during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties came to a negotiated settlement and entered into a Deed of Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed another notice, dated 7.3.2013, addressed to No.7, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83, when the respondent is aware of the address of the Registered Office of the petitioner-Company, i.e. No.16, Cenatoph Road, Chennai-18. The respondent on the earlier occasions, had been corresponding with the petitioner-Company only at the Registered Office address. The respondent deliberately corresponded with an erroneous address merely to deny the petitioner an opportunity of responding to the same. The Postal mark on the cover makes it clear that the cover itself was posted only on 16.3.2013, when the notice is dated 7.3.2013, fixing the date of hearing of the case as 14.3.2013. Immediately on receipt of this notice, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent on 20.3.2013 bringing it to their notice that the notice under Section 143(2), dated 7.3.2013, posting the matter for hearing on 14.3.2013, was received by the petitioner only on 20.3.2013 and this letter of the petitioner was received by the respondent on 21.3.2013 and the respondent admitted the position that the notice had been issued belatedly and that a fresh notice would be issued posting the matter for hearing afresh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent while passing the impugned order. (i) The petitioner was incorporated as a Special Purchase Vehicle to pursue opportunities in Real Estate and owing to the paucity of funds which are required to engage in the business pursuits of purchase and sale of land and land development, M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd. solely financed them and the said M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd. was engaged primarily in the area of wind energy development and the operation and maintenance of wind farms and they availed of a term loan from Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) for the purpose of establishing a wind project in Andhra Pradesh. A security covenant in the term loan agreement with IREDA required M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd. to mortgage the acquisition of immovable property to IREDA by way of first mortgage. Though interested in pursuing Real Estate opportunities, there was an embargo on M/s.Wescare (India) Ltd. in pursuing the same; however, there was no prohibition on them in utilising their surplus funds in any manner that they chose and hence, they utilised their surplus funds in funding the business transactions of development of Real Estate with the petitioner. Pursuant to the compr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackground of pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material documents available on record. 7. It is seen that there was a notice dated 7.3.2013 issued by the respondent under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act fixing the date of hearing of the case as 14.3.2013 for clarifying certain issues. It is admitted that the said notice was received by the petitioner only on 20.3.2013, i.e. after the date of hearing fixed on 14.3.2013. In this regard, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue produced a copy of the written instructions of the respondent, in PAN AABCG3714B/2005-06, dated 17.4.2013, wherein, it is stated as follows: " .... .... ..... 4. For the purpose of assessment proceedings, Shri Sivakumar, FCA and Authorised Representative of the assessee company appeared and filed the various details called for. The Authorised Representative appeared on 27.12.2012. The case was posted for further hearing on 02.01.2013. The Authorised Representative appeared on 16.01.2013 and the case was adjourned to 21.01.2013. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative filed his written submissions along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
