Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Premier Security Services 309 Through Proprietor Jasjit Singh Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 Ashok Marg & 2 Others

2017 (11) TMI 581 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Validity of notice issued under Section 245 - Cause of action having arisen to "M/s Premier Security Services" to file this writ petition - Refund of tax already paid to be adjusted against demand outstanding denied - Held that:- Record shows that Assessee before Income Tax Department is "Jasjit Singh", an ''individual' having PAN No. ASSPS7046N. Writ petition has been filed by M/s Premier Security Services, through its Proprietor Jasjit Singh and not by Jasjit Singh himself. In fact photocopy o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and 29 the same relate to ''Jasjit Singh' and on pages 32 to 45, the same relate to ''Birendra Singh'. - Jasjit Singh may have earned income by running Premier Security Services, but ''Premier Security Services' is not an Assessee before Income Tax Department. - Therefore this writ petition at the instance of "Premier Security Services", challenging orders and notices relating to "Jasjit Singh" is thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable.It is not stated anywhere in the writ petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

outstanding, pursuant to the assessment orders, which are operating, ex facie, adjustment of demand, outstanding under such assessment orders, against amount of refund payable to an Assessee cannot be said to be illegal and it can well be adjusted by the authority concerned. - MISC. BENCH No. - 9790 of 2014 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shalabh Singh,Santosh Kumar Shukla For the Respondent : Ghanshyam Chaudhary .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adjusted against demand outstanding against him being ₹ 567990/-, on 31.03.2013, and ₹ 1501170/- on 25.03.2014, relating to A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. Petitioner has further sought for a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to issue a refund voucher along with interest under Section 244A for A.Y. 2010-11. 2. Facts in brief stated in writ petition are that petitioner, Premier Security Services, is a proprietorship firm, assessed as ''individual', under Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Assessment was finalized by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "A.O.") computing liability of tax of ₹ 5,78,090/- upon Jasjit Singh. Order of assessment dated 31.03.2013 passed by DCIT shows that in the return of income filed by Jasjit Singh, total income declared was ₹ 1529390/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 02.09.2011. Representative of Jasjit Singh, Proprietor of petitioner appeared before Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncome of ₹ 17,29,390/-. A.O. worked out total tax liability of petitioner to ₹ 5,78,090/-. Order of assessment was appealable but it does not appear that any appeal was filed. Instead, an application dated 23.04.2013 under Section 154 was filed before DCIT stating that credit of TDS amount of ₹ 9,90,995/- has not been given. Said application was not decided and in the mean time impugned notice has been issued. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that if application unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

horities have been cited by learned Counsel for petitioner;"Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals (2014) 267 CTR89SC, Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC), CIT vs. H.E.G. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC), CIT Vs. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (2013) 358 ITR 291 (SC-Larger Bench), CIT Vs. Gujarat Flouro Chemicals 348 ITR 319 (SC-Division Bench), Prayag Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2012) 348 ITR 217 (All), CBDT Instruction No.2 dated 28th March, 2007 (209) CTR (Statute) 17, CIT Vs. Nar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Kumar Bhatti Vs. CIT (1994) 205 ITR 110 Del, Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India (2014) 365 ITR 14 (All). 7. We have gone through aforesaid authorities very carefully and find that without appreciating facts of his own case, learned Counsel for petitioner has simply cited huge number of authorities, which have consumed our sufficient time in deep study and consideration thereof but coming to the conclusion that none has any application to the case in hand. 8. In short, record shows that Asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version