2019 (9) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenging the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 14/18.03.2019 with consequential direction to the fourth respondent to pass speaking order. 2.Heard Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.Through the impugned order, the fourth respondent informed the petitioner that the Local Committee to deal with tax payers grievances from High Pitched Scrutiny Assessment is of the opinion that the assessments for the Assessment Years 2010-2011 to 2015-2016, cannot be termed as high pitched as per instruction No.7 of 2015. 4.Brief facts, which lead to the filing of the present writ petition, as projected by the petitioner, are as follows: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....grant made to channel partners and depreciation. The Assessing Officer by order dated 31.12.2016, though answered the two issues in favour of the petitioner and reversed the two additions made on that score in the original order of assessment, however made new additions by disallowing a portion of restricted project grants received from Compassion international which are directly incurred by the petitioner on programs as well as in the administration of the programs. These new additions were made by the Assessing Officer notwithstanding the fact that these deductions were earlier allowed in the original order of assessment dated 30.03.2013. Challenging the said order of assessment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hen the petitioner has approached the Authority constituted under the said mechanism viz.,Local Committee and filed a complaint that the assessment orders are high pitched one, the said Committee should have considered the grievances of the petitioner in detail and pass a speaking order with reasons and findings. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order, being a non speaking one cannot be sustained. 6.On the other hand, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, based on instructions, submitted that the mechanism provided under instruction No.17 of 2015 is not a mechanism in lieu of appeal or an alternative procedure. Therefore, she contended that when the Committee is of the opinion that....