9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f sufficient fund shall be returned to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is challenging the liability, he should be given notice of assessment followed by personal hearing and thereafter, the respondent shall proceed on merits to pass appropriate assessment order after complying with all the conditions after giving notice followed by personal hearing - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.No.17355 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2015 - MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA, J. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad For Respondent : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Additional Government Pleader (T) ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Crescent Trade Links represented by its Managing Partner A.A.Mohammed Ziaudeen, seeking Writ of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .The petitioner also offered explanation on each of the issues in the course of the inspection itself to the second respondent herein. However, the second respondent refused to accept the explanation and arbitrarily arrived at alleged tax demand of ₹ 42,72,722/-. The second respondent once again arbitrarily demanded payment of the same and asked for issuance of the cheque. Accordingly, to avoid embarrassment and further not to precipitate the issue, the petitioner was compelled to issue two cheques namely, cheque no.188422 dated 10.04.2015 for ₹ 16,00,000/- and cheque no.188423 dated 10.04.2015 for ₹ 20,00,000/-. Petitioner immediately at the time of issuing the cheque under compulsion explained before them that they do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of demand in Form 'O' was issued, he was not able to show any cause for the recovery order. 7.Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that when there is no assessment order or notice issued, the impugned notice of demand of cash amount is wholly untenable and illegal in terms of Section 269 B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. 8.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that one cheque amount has been utilized and amount of ₹ 16,00,000/- has been realized. However, the second cheque which appears to have been dishonoured for want of sufficient fund shall be returned to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is challenging the liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
