Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (1) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Including the fact that a hearing (howsoever inadequate) was given to the petitioner. This fact of hearing being granted is now admitted even by the petitioner after the note sheet is produced. The affidavit dated 11th December, 2017 of Mr. Mahopatra on behalf of the petitioner, however also does not make any attempt to explain the use of the word “No personal hearing whatsoever was granted”. The only thin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arch, 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 averment in paragraphs 10B and 10D of the petition as under : 10B ... No opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted to the petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... end 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 above context, he submits that even the impugned order dated 11th October, 2011 does not record a grant of hearing to the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Including the fact that a hearing (howsoever inadequate) was given to the petitioner. This fact of hearing being granted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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, when this petition was first moved and at no time did the petitioner seek any relief without notice to the other side. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates