9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, the certificate dated 24th May, 2017 issued for lower deduction of tax at 0.39 per cent for the period 22nd May, 2017 to 31st March, 2018 under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is cancelled. 2. This petition was originally filed on 10th October, 2017 seeking a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Revenue from proceeding further with Show Cause Notice dated 16th and 30th August, 2017 proposing to cancel the Certificate dated 24th May, 2017. Thereafter, the petition was amended on 14th November, 2018 consequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 11th October, 2017 cancelling the Certificate dated 24th May, 2017. The amendment made consequent to order dated 6th November, 2017, contained specific aver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hearing on merits. The affidavit further records that on 11th September, 2017, the petitioner's representative did attend the office of respondent no.1 and reiterated the submissions made in the letter dated 7th September, 2017. At which time, i.e. on 11th September, 2017 as the affidavit in terms records that the petitioner's authorized representative was informed by the respondent no.1 that he will consult with the Additional Commissioner / Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and the hearing was inconclusive. 5. Mr. Mistri, further states that in the affidavit dated 8th January, 2018 filed by respondent no.1 in response to affidavit dated 11th December, 2017, the above facts of inconclusive hearing has not been disputed. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, be whether the exfacie misstatement and suppression of the hearing having been granted by stating in the petition "no personal hearing whatsoever was granted" was a material suppression i.e. by making such a statement was the petitioner likely to gain therefrom and whether it was a bona fide mistake / inappropriate drafting. 7. In this case, we find besides stating in the petition that no hearing was given, no mention of meeting the respondent no.1 with regard to these proceedings is even mentioned. We are not impressed by the submission on behalf of the petitioner that even the impugned order does not mention grant of any personal hearing to the petitioner. This does not absolve the petitioner from stating all facts fully and truly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that every material statement of fact stated in the petition as filed is correct and there is no suppression of material fact relating to the proceedings. The facts are only known to the petitioner and therefore, his obligation to ensure that facts are correctly represented in the petition. 9. The only thing in support of the petitioner is that when the suppression is seen in the context of the fact, it is clear that at no time did the petitioner seek to obtain any adinterim / interim relief on the basis of above averment without notice to the other side, it could be suggestive of a mistake. We have examined the orders passed from time to time, from the 6th November, 2017 onwards, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
