9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai, dated 26.09.2023. 2. Since a common issue arises for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this Common Order. 3. For the sake of brevity and conciseness, W.P.No.29455 of 2023 is taken as a lead case and it would be suffice to note the facts stated thereunder :- i) The Company, named 'M/s.Watanmal Boolchand and Company' is a Foreign Company incorporated in Hong Kong in the year 1948. The said WBC Company was carrying on business of import and export of general merchandise. Subsequently, the said Company entered into Food Market segment in various categories and did trading in both branded and unbranded products. The petitioner was appointed as Director of the said Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Challenging the Draft Assessment Orders, WBC filed objections before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') and DRP upheld the Draft Assessment Orders, pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Orders. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Orders, WBC filed Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. iv) The proceedings initiated against WBC in respect of AYs 2006- 07 to 2015-16 are pending by way of Appeals before Division Bench of this Court as well as Tribunal. At this juncture, the respondent-Department is seeking to recover the disputed demand by treating the petitioner as an Agent (representative Assessee) under Section 163 (1) I.T.Act and issued a show cause notice, to which, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, without granting any opportunity, passed the impugned orders by treating the petitioners as Agents (representative assessees) of WBC. 4.1 The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Section 163 (2) of I.T. Act, ''no person shall be treated as the agent of a non-resident unless he has had an opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.'' whereas, in the present, the petitioners were treated as Agents and proceedings were initiated in terms of Section 163 (1) and impugned order came to be passed, without providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned orders suffers from gross violation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are the Directors of WBC, which is a Foreign Company, they are not Agents of the said Company. However, proceedings under Section 163 (1) were initiated against the petitioners by treating the petitioners as Agents (representative Assessees) of WBC, and show cause notices dated 06.09.2023 were issued calling forth reply from the petitioners on or before 13.09.2023, and the petitioners filed their reply on 18.09.2023, seeking for further time to submit a detailed reply and to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, however, the respondent, without considering such request, passed the impugned orders. 8. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department, even at the time of issuance of show cause notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners, in their replies have made a specific request for providing further time to file a detailed reply (since they have to collate certain informations to buttress their contentions) and also to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing final orders. However, the respondent, without considering such request, straightaway passed the impugned orders on 26.09.2023, and in the said impugned orders, the replies filed by the petitioners were also considered and discussed. 11. When the respondent-Department had initiated proceedings under Section 163 (1) of I.T. Act, by treating the petitioners as Agents of WBC, they ought to have provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, since, in terms of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same shall be filed in advance and thereafter, they shall appear before the respondent and the respondent after perusing the documents and after hearing the petitioner in full shall pass orders in accordance with law. 13. It is made clear that this Court, taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where, the impugned orders are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, which is apparent on the face of record and bearing in mind that the interest of both the petitioner and the Revenue has to be safeguarded, has passed this order. 14. After this Court passed an order, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the issue rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
