9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee" (FICC). The urea produced by the petitioner is required to be sold to farmers at a specified price and under the scheme, FICC computes the retention price; the difference between the controlled sale price and the retention price so fixed is paid to the manufacturing unit as subsidy every month. It appears that the petitioner has been showing such subsidy as its income from year to year. That despite there being requirement of revision of retention price every three years, in actual practice, such revision does not take place at such fixed periodical intervals. It is the case of the petitioner that, some time in 2000-01, FICC discovered an error in the computation of retention price right from 1982 and, therefore, decided to recover t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by refusing to condone the delay, and, secondly, also on the merits of the matter. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) this hon'ble court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax at exhibit E. (B) this hon'ble court be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the deduction in the year in which it was paid more and which more was later repaid to the Government of India, and be pleased to ask the Assessing Officer to pass an order downward revising the assessed incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of retention price in the arrears of bills or fresh bills that may be preferred with the FICC and only in cases where no payments are due from the Government, the petitioner was required to refund the amount to the Government by due date. In such circumstances, the approach of the Commissioner of Income-tax in refusing to condone the delay on the ground that there was no valid explanation for the delay, is not in order. The position in law is well settled that an assessee should be granted appropriate relief where it is due without standing on technicalities and the Revenue must bear the established legal position in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. It is necessary that a liberal approach is adopted in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts for the purposes of granting relief from the income already assessed, made a statement, under instructions, that the Revenue shall not raise any objection and shall grant deduction to the petitioner as and when the petitioner is called upon to make the payment and/or makes payment of excess amount of subsidy in subsequent years. It is apparent from the communication dated December 5, 2001 that, while communicating the revised retention price of urea produced by the petitioner, FICC has stated the modality and the procedure to be adopted for the purposes of making claims and/or payments, as the case may be, in the case of the petitioner for different periods inclusive of future bills to be preferred by the petitioner, in the following wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
