2017 (5) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed of as having become infructuous. 2. We have heard Mr. T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent.   3. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that once an application was made for the advance ruling under Section 245Q of the Income Tax Ac t, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the same having been admitted, it was obligatory on the part of the Advance Ruling Authority to render the decision on merits and merely because the assessment proceedings in respect of the petitioner were concluded pursuant to the income tax return filed, it cannot be said that the application made by the petitioner had be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation for advance   7. The aforesaid shows that the conduct of the petitioner, if examined further, the petitioner voluntarily participated in the assessment proceedings and did not object at any point of time for continuation or conclusion of the assessment proceedings. Once the petitioner has surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer that too without raising any objection for continuation or conclusion of the assessment proceedings and thereafter, if the assessment order is passed by the Assessing Officer and based on the same, if the competent Authority for Advance Rulings has disposed of the application as having become infructuous, we do not find that such a view taken by the Authority can be said as unreasonable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....luntary conduct on the part of the petitioner as sought to be canvassed. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Onmobile Global Limited vs. The Chairman, the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) in writ petition No.36749/2014 disposed of on 06.03.2015 and contended that it is obligatory on the part of the Advance Ruling Authority to decide the application on merits once it is admitted and it could not have been dismissed for default and hence, it can also be said that the Advance Ruling Authority could not dispose of the application as having become infructuous. 12. We have considered the ....