Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 903 - HC - Income TaxCertificate issued for lower deduction of tax at 0.39 per cent u/s 197 cancelled - whether the exfacie misstatement and suppression of the hearing having been granted by stating in the petition “no personal hearing whatsoever was granted” was a material suppression i.e. by making such a statement was the petitioner likely to gain therefrom and whether it was a bona fide mistake / inappropriate drafting? - whether the suppression of the fact of hearing being granted is material in the present facts? Held that:- In this case, we find besides stating in the petition that no hearing was given, no mention of meeting the respondent no.1 with regard to these proceedings is even mentioned. We are not impressed by the submission on behalf of the petitioner that even the impugned order does not mention grant of any personal hearing to the petitioner. This does not absolve the petitioner from stating all facts fully and truly. Including the fact that a hearing (howsoever inadequate) was given to the petitioner. This fact of hearing being granted is now admitted even by the petitioner after the note sheet is produced. The affidavit dated 11th December, 2017 of Mr. Mahopatra on behalf of the petitioner, however also does not make any attempt to explain the use of the word “No personal hearing whatsoever was granted”. The only thing in support of the petitioner is that when the suppression is seen in the context of the fact, it is clear that at no time did the petitioner seek to obtain any adinterim / interim relief on the basis of above averment without notice to the other side, it could be suggestive of a mistake. We have examined the orders passed from time to time, from the 6th November, 2017 onwards, when this petition was first moved and at no time did the petitioner seek any relief without notice to the other side. Therefore, the suppression may have been on account of mistake as it is unlikely to be made deliberately as it would stand exposed on the other side having notice of the same. Admittedly, the petitioner in this case, has always moved the Court after notice to the respondents. Petition dismissed.
|