9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y without the authority of law, CIT (TDS) has power to withdraw it – but it is not fair to allow the retrospective cancellation of the certificates - Writ petition is partially allowed - 6858 of 2009(B) - - - Dated:- 1-4-2009 - Justice K.M. JOSEPH Sri. E. K. Nandakumar for the Petitioner. Sri. Jose Joseph, SC, for Income-tax for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for the grant of certificate under section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under section 197, it is open to the authority to certify that assessee is entitled to payment without deducting tax at source. Accordingly, on the basis of the application, petitioner obtained Ext.P2 series. Subsequently, after serving notice on him and affording an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication filed by the petitioner and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that even after the issuance of the notification, the 1st respondent had power in the matter. It is pointed out that the Commissioner has, acting under the powers available under section 120 of the Income Tax Act, empowered the 2nd respondent to exercise his powers which is permissible in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, of course, relied on the decisions of the Apex court relating to the principle of de facto doctrine in Pushpadevi M. Jatia Vs. M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary, Government of India and others [1987 (3) SCC 367], M/s.Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and others Vs. Vishwa Nath and others [1987 (3) SCC 693] and Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificates and the payments which are effected on the strength of the certificates, it is not fair to allow the retrospective cancellation of the certificates. Obviously, everybody acted on the basis of the certificates. Payments were made without deduction on the strength of the certificates. The 1 st respondent cannot be said to be a person who is totally unconnected with the administration of the Income Tax Act. In such circumstances, while I repel the contention of the petitioner about the absence of authority with the 2nd respondent or the presence of the authority with the 1st respondent after the notification is issued, I would think that it would be equitable if I sustain the impugned order but with prospective effect. I do so. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
