TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled either to adduce the basic contract before the said authority nor could satisfy the said authority that it was impossible for the Assessee to produce the said basic documents. We fail to understand any cogent reason for the Assessee not to produce the same. The party to the said contract was admittedly in another contract with the present petitioner and therefore, the present Assessee could have definitely requested the party viz., Sri Lanka Telecom to supply a copy of the said agreement to provide and background and context to the Authority for Advance Rulings to decide the question on which such advance ruling was sought by the Assessee. Without making any such efforts to satisfy the Authority that it was not possible for the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring advance ruling by the said authority, headed by a former Judge of the High Court, to decide certain questions to avoid further disputes during the course of assessment proceedings. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference :- 5. When the application came up for hearing on 24.8.2012, the basic contract dated 27.3.2004 had not yet been produced. It is to be noticed that SLT from which the applicant derives rights is a member of the consortium. The rights of SLT spring from that Consortium agreement. It was clear to this Authority that for ruling on the questions raised by the applicant in a manner satisfactory to the conscience, an understanding of the terms and effect of that documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulated and close the application leaving it to the applicant to raise its contentions before the Assessing Officer. The application stands disposed off. The Revenue is free to proceed in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the ruling is pronounced on this, the 27th day of August, 2012. 2. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.Vishnu Mohan, sought to urge before us that the said contract dated 27 March 2004, the petitioner is not a party and therefore, was unable to produce the same. He, however, sought to refer to the agreement between the petitioner and the SLT dated 24 August 2009 and wanted to read before us certain clauses of that agreement to submit that the questions raised before the Authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
