TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sufficient. The Authority ought to have specified as to what was the contradiction in the two affidavits and why the same was not acceptable. After having gone through the two affidavits, what we find is that initially the applicant-writ petitioner had stated that the notice for hearing on 16.01.2014 was not received by him. In the second affidavit, it was stated that though the said notice may have been delivered but it was misplaced and never brought to the notice of the applicant. The said averments cannot be termed as contradictory statements because the consistent stand of the applicant was that the notice was never within the knowledge of the applicant. In a case like this, where a party seeks Advanced Ruling, under the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomers of Telecom Operator in Brazil. On 09.12.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent-Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for brevity) seeking a ruling on the applicability of withholding tax provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to one-time premium paid by the petitioner-Company to the Telecom Operator in Brazil. The said application was admitted by the Authority on 17.10.2011, which according to the petitioner, was after hearing the parties. 4. According to the petitioner, several hearings had taken place, and prior to 16.01.2014, the last date fixed was 23.04.2012, on which date, the matter was adjourned without giving an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements made by the applicant-writ petitioner in the two affidavits were contradictory. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Rule 17 of The Rules, 1996, even if the applicant-writ petitioner had not appeared before the Authority on the date fixed for hearing, the option for the Authority was to decide the case exparte on merits and not to dismiss in default. It has further been submitted that no contradiction in the statements of the applicant in the two affidavits has been pointed out by the Authority and merely by stating that contradictory statements had been made, the same would not suffice without specifying as to what contradictions were there in the two affidavits. It is thus contended that the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contradiction in the two affidavits and why the same was not acceptable. 8. After having gone through the two affidavits, what we find is that initially the applicant-writ petitioner had stated that the notice for hearing on 16.01.2014 was not received by him. In the second affidavit, it was stated that though the said notice may have been delivered but it was misplaced and never brought to the notice of the applicant. The said averments cannot be termed as contradictory statements because the consistent stand of the applicant was that the notice was never within the knowledge of the applicant. In a case like this, where a party seeks Advanced Ruling, under the provision of the Income Tax Act, from the Authority to find out as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
