9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the I.T. Act, 1961, has assailed an order dated March 20, 1979 (annexure " I " to the writ petition), in so far as it related to an adjustment of Rs. 2,02,931 towards the alleged tax liability of one Hiralal Mithal (in his individual capacity) who was, at one time, a partner of the petitioner from the amount due to the petitioner as refund. It is not in dispute that Hiralal Mithal was a partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which Hiralal Mithal was admittedly partner and that it was open to the department, therefore, to adjust part of the amount Of refund against the income-tax liabilities of Hiralal Mithal. It has been suggested that the petitioner firm could be required to pay to the I.T. Department dues of Hiralal Mithal by recourse to the provisions contained in ss. 182(4) and 226(3) of the I.T. Act in particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, detailed explanation has been offered in regard to the claim of the petitioner that the demand made through the notice issued to the petitioner firm in the year 1976 under s. 226(3) of the Act has been fully adjusted. It has also been mentioned that at the time when the adjustment from the amount of the refund allowed to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts noticed earlier and those asserted in the affidavits exchanged between the parties, it is amply borne out that before the impugned order of adjustment was passed, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner firm to have its say in the matter. It is obvious that the petitioner can legitimately urge that prejudice has been caused to it and that in case an opportunity was afforded to it, it woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
