2004 (9) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt No. 1 and also to quash notice dated March 3, 2003, (annexure P 14) issued by respondent No. 2. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to issue renewal of exemption certificate under section 80G of the Income-tax Act by allowing applications dated February 12, 2002 (annexure P 4) and dated July 30, 2002, (annexure P-5). (iii) A writ of prohibition may issued to the respondent not to proceed further on the basis of the notice dated March 3, 2003 (annexure P 14) which has been issued as a consequence of the passing of the order dated February 20, 2003 (annexure P-13)". At the commencement of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no grievance regarding issue of notice under secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no hearing and it was a mere formality and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then taken us through paras. 8 and 9 of the writ petition and the reply thereto filed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Paras. 8 and 9 and the reply filed thereto read thus: Paras. 8 and 9 of the writ petition: "8. That respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated September 4, 2002, (annexure P 7), to the petitioner requiring it to appear before him on September 12, 2002, along with all the relevant books of account in connection with the renewal of exemption of the trust under the Act. Respondent No. 2 asked for certain more queries from the trust vide his letter dated September 24, 2002 (anne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the letter/complaint/reply dated November 21, 2002, is appended as annexure P 9. The reply dated November 21, 2002, which was prepared for submitting the same to respondent No. 2, was also appended as enclosure to annexure P-9 while submitting the same to respondent No. 1. A true copy of the same is appended as annexure P 10. Reply on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to paras. 8 and 9: That in reply to paras. 8 and 9 of the civil writ petition it is being submitted that the facts of these paras, are not admitted as correct and are denied. It is wrong on the part of the petitioner to say that respondent No. 2 slated the matter for November 21, 2002. The correct and real fact is that respondent No. 2 slated the matter for Septe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e more adjournment application on the ground that the accountant is ill and again requested for two weeks time. Therefore, respondent No. 2 slated the matter for November 21, 2002, after several adjournments and did not jump to November 21, 2002, as alleged by the petitioner. Looking to the carefree and non-serious attitude of the assessee in delaying the things and in not making compliance to the statutory requirements, respondent No. 2 was convinced that the petitioner is not going to answer his queries and to furnish the required information. So respondent No. 2 sent the report dated November 13, 2002, to respondent No. 1 which was forwarded by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak, respondent No. 3, to the Commissioner of....