TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondent, by order, dated 30.04.2008 and that order is challenged in this writ petition - Though, in the counter, it was stated that opportunity was given to the petitioner, before passing of the order, dated 30.04.2008, there is no denial to the averments made in the writ petition that in response to the letter, dated 29.05.2008, issued by the respondent, the petitioner submitted the documents as called for. Further, no explanation has been stated by the respondent why the Income Tax Office, Head Quarters No.1, Madurai directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent, when order was already passed. Hence, it is hard to digest the explanation of the respondent stated in the counter that due to inadvertence and due to confusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f recognition u/s 80G(5) of the I.T. Act was refused by the respondent, by order, dated 30.04.2008 and that order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Subramaniam, that without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by Commissioner of Income Tax No.I, Madurai, when enquiry under section 18(G) was pending before the Income Tax Officer, Head Quarters No.1 Madurai. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent sent a letter dated 29.05.2008 calling for some information and the auditors' of the petitioner, by letter, dated 31.10.2008, furnished those particulars and the Income Tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atural justice and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Ms.S.Srimathy, contended that the order was, in fact, passed on 30.04.2008, but due to some confusion about the another proceedings in the name of 'Noorul Islam Educational trust', the order was not communicated immediately to the petitioner and it is only a mistake committed by the subordinates of the respondent department and the certificate was refused for valid reasons and there is an appeal provision under section 253(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without availing the appeal remedy, this petition is not maintainable. The learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent also denied the allegations t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to the letter of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, dated 29.05.2008 and submitted the various records. 10. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in response to the letter, dated 29.05.2008 sent by the respondent, the petitioner's authorised representative appeared in-person before the respondent and submitted a representation, in writing, enclosing necessary details regarding the financial statement for the year ended as on 31.03.2008 and also the details of activities in book form. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice, dated 02.12.2008, directing them to appear before the respondent on 10.12.2008 stating that they must appear with the following documents, but without mentioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
