TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Works, located at Pilkhani in District Saharanpur. It is a alleged in para. 6 of the writ petition that the manufacturing operation at all the three units are of continuous nature, and therefore, for smooth operation it is necessary that the employees of the company are available at all times to meet the emergent needs in the manufacturing operation even at odd hours. In para. 7 it is alleged that the aforesaid three units of the petitioner are located in remote areas where the township is small. There is no residential accommodation available in nearby areas for the officers and workmen of these units. Hence, the petitioner was obliged to construct residential colonies to provide accommodation to various categories of its employees in the premises of the above units. The petitioner also provided furniture with the above accommodation. In paras. 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that under the Central Wage Board (Sugar), standard rent has been fixed for different categories of residential accommodation, and the petitioner is obliged to provide accommodation to its employees only on such standard rent fixed by the Wage Board. In para. 12 of the petition it is alleg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amli, with a direction that the rental value as fixed in the letter, should be adopted in the aforesaid assessment years. For the aforesaid subsequent assessment years 1985-86 to 1996-97, the petitioner filed four representations in the same manner as the representation dated July 31, 1982, for necessary directions for fixing the fair rental value of the quarters and the furniture. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner determined the fair rental value as per the chart mentioned in para. 17 of the petition. The petitioner has alleged that the aforesaid order was in the nature of a direction under section 144A of the Income-tax Act. As for the petitioner the aforesaid communication was in the nature of an order that the petitioner should deduct the tax at source from the salary of the employees. It is alleged in para. 20 that in the years assessment year 1982-83 to assessment year 1996-97, the petitioner's employees were assessed by treating the aforesaid perquisite value of the quarters and furniture as fixed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, in their orders, copies of which are annexures 8 to 12 to the writ peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial years 1991-92 and 1995-96. In the above note it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, had issued some letters for the review of his predecessor's letter, but that has not been communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply objecting to the aforesaid notice but thereafter another notice dated November 15, 1996, was issued asking the petitioner for producing documents of the terms and conditions with the employees of its units for the period April 1, 1982, onwards vide annexure 17 to the petition. The petitioner filed a reply objecting to it on November 26, 1996. However, on December 6, 1996, the Income-tax Officer (TDS) issued three fresh notices in respect of the financial year 1994-95 for the three units. In this notice, he determined the value of all the perquisites including the quarters and furniture, and required the petitioner to show cause against it vide annexure 18 to the writ petition. The petitioner sent a reply dated December 23, 1996, but on January 2, 1997, the Income-tax Officer (TDS) passed the three orders under section 201/201(1A) for the financial year 1994-95 for all the three units of the petitioner. By these orders, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny order which has civil consequences will be invalid if it was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. Hence the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. However, we may also consider the contention in para. 17 of the counter affidavit that the directions, copies of which are annexures 8 to 12 to the writ petition, could not be given under any provision of the Income-tax Act. In our opinion, this contention is not correct. In our opinion, under section 144A, there is power in the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (now Deputy Commissioner) to issue the direction referred to in annexure 8 to 12 of the writ petition. It may be mentioned that section 144A was inserted by the Taxation laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from January 1, 1976. As originally enacted section 144A read as follows: "An Inspecting Assistant Commissioner may, on his own motion, or on a reference being made to him by the Income-tax Officer, or on the application of an assessee, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an assessment is pending and, if he considers, that, having regard to the nature of the case or the amount involved or for any other reason, it is neces....