TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nducted in assessee's case for the purpose of TDS verification on 23-04-2008, and an order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) was passed on 24-03-2011, raising the demand of Rs. 2,00,35,000/-. The assessee's case was taken up for verification for the period relevant to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, as well. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-I, Pune vide order dated 19-03-2012 for assessment year 2009-10 and order dated 26-03- 2012 for the assessment year 2010-11 raised demand u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194H of the Act on trade discount allowed to prepaid distributors. The details of the demand raised are as under: A.Y. TDS u/s. 194H Interest u/s. 201(1A) Total 2009-10 6,35,25,863....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch of the Tribunal in the case titled Idea Cellular Limited Vs. DCIT reported as 121 TTJ 352 (Delhi). The ld. AR further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) while exercising his power u/s. 263 has also violated the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice u/s. 263 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) on 30-03-2014 which happens to be Sunday. Notice was served by affixation at the office premises of the assessee on same day. The assessee was directed to appear on 31-03-2014. The assessee appeared on 31-03-2014 and expressed inability to furnish explanation at such a short notice and prayed for adjournment. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) in an arbitrary and unjustified manner passed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natural justice as well as on merits. In support of his submissions, the ld.AR placed reliance on the following case laws: i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii. Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 40 taxmann.com 545 (Bom-HC); iv. Shri Palani Transport Co. Vs. AO, 46 taxmann.com 187 (Gij-HC); v. Skycell Communications Limited Vs. DCIT, 251 ITR 53 (Mad-HC); and vi. Idea Cellular Limited Vs. DCIT, 121 TTJ 352 (T-Del). 4. Smt. Harshvardhini Buty representing the Department vehemently supported the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and prayed for dismissing the appeals of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India has time and again emphasized that the principles of natural justice have to be adhered while discharging administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial functions. 7. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) while deciding an issue in writ petition, where the Assessing Officer had given less than 24 hours to reply show cause notice observed, that it is a flaw in the decision making process and therefore amenable to judicial review. The justice must not only be done but also appear to have been done. The non-consideration of the petitiioner's response to the notice by making it impossible to the petitioner to file its reply for the consideration of the Assessing Officer does cause p....