2009 (12) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le of the second respondent. The company is a fully owned subsidiary of three companies, by name, MAS.Capital Pvt. Ltd., Sri Lanka, Triumph International Overseas Ltd., Liechtenstein and MAST Industries Inc. USA. MAS Capital Pvt. Ltd. is a Sri Lanka based investment, company. The affidavit filed before this court gives the role of the three associated enterprises. 3. The petitioner herein filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 before the second respondent. By letter dated December 16, 2008, the first respondent, to whom a reference under section 92CA of the Act was made on December 5, 2008, called upon the petitioner to furnish the details in terms of sections 92D to 92E of the Act by January 16, 2009. The petitioner,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeared on September 15, 2009, norany letter seeking adjournment was filed. Yet, on September 16, 2009, the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. On that day, except to the written statement filed on September 16, 2009, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of personal hearing. In the circumstances, there is no violation of the provisions of the Act. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that having regard to the Dispute Resolution Board constituted as per the Income-tax Dispute Resolution Panel, if the petitioner has a grievance, the proper course would be for the petitioner to agitate the assessment either before the appellate authority or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 6....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner should have filed its reply along with availing of the personal hearing on September 15, 2009. Although the petitioner had filed its objections on September 16, 2009, nothing further happened from the side of the petitioner seeking personal hearing or for that matter, the Department intimated later on that the petitioner had not availed of the opportunity of personal hearing. However, as seen from the endorsement in the letter seeking adjournment that the proceedings posted on November 15, 2009, it stands to reason that the petitioner should have availed of the personal hearing on the date on which the reply was filed. Having thus failed to avail of the same, I do not find any justification in the plea of the petitioner that ....