9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est for personal hearing was made much prior to the date when the impugned order was passed. The AO, clearly, did not pay any heed to it. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has not filed a Return of Income (ROI) for the AY in issue. As to whether such an obligation is cast on the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, is a matter which also needs to be inquired into by the AO. The provisions of Section 139 and Section 115A would have to be interpreted by the AO. That said, what the AO may also have to rule on is that even if ROI was not filed, will that, by itself, lead to a conclusion that remittances received by the petitioner were income chargeable to tax which had escaped a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) Consequential notice dated 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Ac. (iv) Quash proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that it has received foreign remittances amounting to Rs. 9,12,50,136/- from an Indian company going by the name Timex Group India Ltd. 6. It is the respondents/revenue s case that the remittance is in the nature of consultancy services, and hence, is taxable under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In other words, the remittance has been treated as fee for technical services by the respondents/revenue. 7. The record shows that the petitioner is a tax resident of USA. The notice dated 31.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 10.2 This order, evidently, was communicated to the petitioner by respondent no. 1 via e-mail dated 23.06.2023. As a matter of fact, this e-mail not only furnished a copy of the order dated 01.05.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, but also the notice of even date, i.e., 01.05.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 11. Mr Chawla cannot but accept that a request for personal hearing was made much prior to the date when the impugned order was passed. The AO, clearly, did not pay any heed to it. 11.1 Furthermore, as noticed hereinabove, a reply, on merits, was filed by the petitioner, although after the impugned order had already been passed by the AO. 12. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
