Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (9) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral justice – matter is remanded - - - - - Dated:- 30-9-2004 - Judge(s) : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL., G. S. SINGHVI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- In this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayers: "(i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash order dated July 30, 2002 (annexure P 5), and order dated February 20, 2003, (annexure P-13), passed by respondent No. 1 and also to quash notice dated March 3, 2003, (annexure P 14) issued by respondent No. 2. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to issue renewal of exemption certificate under section 80G of the Income-tax Act by allowing applications dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 21, 2002. According to learned counsel, respondent No. 2 sent a letter annexure P-8, on September 24, 2002, requiring the petitioner to furnish certain documents. According to counsel, the case was fixed for November 21, 2002, and even before the said date, respondent No. 2 had sent his adverse report to respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 3. It was then submitted that the hearing said to have been given by respondent No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case was no hearing and it was a mere formality and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then taken us through paras. 8 and 9 of the writ petition and the reply thereto filed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Paras. 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus by way of complaint and apprising of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner submitted the application dated November 25, 2002, to respondent No. 1 and also submitted the documents and material to respondent No. 1 instead of respondent No. 2 straightaway as there was no utility to furnish these documents to respondent No. 2 since he was ceased of the matter of submitting his report to respondent No. 1 prior to the date of hearing before him. A true copy of the letter/complaint/reply dated November 21, 2002, is appended as annexure P 9. The reply dated November 21, 2002, which was prepared for submitting the same to respondent No. 2, was also appended as enclosure to annexure P-9 while submitting the same to respondent No. 1. A t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... preparation. It is therefore, requested that three weeks time may kindly be granted.'. Respondent No. 2 agreed to the assessee's request and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2002. But again on October 23, 2002, counsel for the petitioner prayed that 'the informations are not ready. Wants more time'. Accordingly, the case was again adjourned to November 7, 2002. Again the petitioner did not make compliance on November 7, 2002 and came forward with yet one more adjournment application on the ground that the accountant is ill and again requested for two weeks time. Therefore, respondent No. 2 slated the matter for November 21, 2002, after several adjournments and did not jump to November 21, 2002, as alleged by the petitioner. Looking to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions, when respondent No. 1 calls for a report. As many as five opportunities on September 13, 2002, October 4, 2002, October 23, 2002, November 7, 2002 and November 21, 2002, were afforded but the assessee did not furnish the required informations." Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the files of the case. A perusal of the same shows that respondent No. 2 on being asked by respondent No. 1 to furnish his comments on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of exemption under section 80G of the Act had called upon the petitioner to produce the material before him to substantiate his claim for grant of exemption under section 80G of the Act. The proceedings before respondent No. 2 thus assume significance and the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates