9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents relating to transactions with associate enterprises during the financial year 2006-2007, which were required to be furnished by 3.3.2008 and that the requisite documents were produced. Subsequently notice dated 15.2.2010 was sent to the petitioner seeking various additional documents and information from the petitioner, which was to be complied by 3.3.2010. 3. According to the petitioner, the documents required were voluminous and since it was engaged in finalisation of the accounts for the year ending 31.3.2010. A letter was addressed on 2.3.2010 seeking extension of time till the end of April, 2010 to provide the documents sought by the second respondent. The letter was acknowledged by the second respondent and time was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The principle submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that having regard to the fact that time was sought to produce the requisite documents and also a prayer was made to give a personal hearing, the order dated 24.9.2010, categorically states that sufficient opportunity was given till 10.3.2010 but not till April, 2010, but the order does not make it apparent as to why thereafter time was not granted when in fact the order itself was passed in September 2010. He also submits that the documents which were produced in March, 2010 have not been considered in their proper perspective and hence, the matter may be remanded back to the concerned authority for re-consideration of the entire issue by gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere already on record were also not taken into consideration or appreciated in their proper perspective, it is just and necessary that the petitioner be given an opportunity to put forth its case before the concerned authority. Moreover, the statute in the instant case i.e., the Income Tax Act does not bar personal hearing being granted and therefore the request made by the petitioner in that regard ought to have been considered by the second respondent, in which event the petitioner could have put forth its case and explained the documents on record. Though learned Counsel for the respondent-Department has submitted that in view of there being an alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable, nevertheless, what has to be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
