9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecovered as income-tax as shown in exhibits P-1 and P-2. Notice of this petition was served on the respondents way back in 1985. The first respondent has not cared to file a counter-affidavit disputing the claims made by the petitioner. Counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were heard. The short facts germane for the decision of the original petition are as follows : The petitioner secured a contract from the first respondent in 1973 to cut a bye-pass channel at T. I. point along the tail race system to the confluence of Valiar and Nachar construction. Before the work was completed, it was stopped. The dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent was referred to an arbitrator. In support of the plea put forward by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stand that no amount has been withheld and that the entire amount due to the petitioner has been paid. On account of such a stand, this court took the view that : "Prima facie, it cannot be said that there is any circumstance which would warrant action by this court. In this view, that petition was closed observing: "There is no bar to the petitioner making any motion before the income-tax authorities in order to seek verification whether any amount due to the petitioner is in any way withheld by the Electricity Board." The income-tax authorities, thereafter, informed the petitioner by exhibit P-12 dated September 25, 1984, that the first respondent had not deducted any amount towards tax due from the petitioner for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction, no amount could have been paid by the first respondent to the petitioner either. This being the legal position, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the first respondent that no amount was deducted towards income-tax on account of the income of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Exhibit P-1 is a statement of accounts showing the payments and recoveries effected by the first respondent while the contract between the parties was subsisting. As per that statement of accounts, it is seen that on January 10, 1975, a sum of Rs. 9,913 was recovered towards income-tax and on January 19, 1975, a further sum of Rs. 4,040 was also deducted towards income-tax. From exhibit P-2, another statement of accounts filed by the first resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
