9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it that the order of assessment was passed much after the period is no ground to justify their action. Thus, the order of the Division Bench fully supports the case of the petitioner and they are entitled to succeed - W.P. No. 19393 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2010 - SIVAGNANAM T.S. J. , J. ORDER:- T.S. SIVAGNANAM J. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the assessment order passed by the respondent dated March 31, 2006, in the light of the orders passed by the honourable Division Bench of this court in W.P. Nos. 8766 to 8768 of 2000 dated September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, such representation was not considered and no order was passed either accepting the request for extension of time or rejecting such request, but the authority mechanically proceeded to confirm the proposal in the pre-assessment notice. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the honourable Division Bench of this court in W.P. Nos. 8766 to 8768 of 2000, in support of his submissions. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) by relying upon the counter-affidavit contended that since the petitioner did not file any evidence in order to fulfil their condition for non-furnishing form F declaration in their Mumbai branch, the authority correctly proceeded and passed the assessment order. Further the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffidavit, the order was not passed immediately after April 15, 2005, but the assessment order was passed only on March 31, 2006 and it was well open to the petitioner to produce the form F declaration. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the honourable Division Bench in W. P. Nos. 8766 to 8768 of 2000. The Division Bench took note of a clarification issued by the Commissioner stating that the failure on the part of the assessing officer to specify the further time allowed to the assessee to file its reply after the document was furnished, must in the circumstances be held to have vitiated the order. Further, the Division Bench held that if the assessing officer fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
