2021 (6) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....last date of hearing, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, who appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3/revenue, says that the counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Nageswar Rao, who appears for the petitioner, affirms that he has received a copy of the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 2. It is, however, Mr. Rao's submission that the issue, which arises for consideration in the present petition, is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court dated 22.04.2021, passed in W.P.(C) No. 9051/2020, titled Concentrix Services Netherlands B. V. vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS) & Anr^1. 2.1. Mr. Bhatia, on the other hand, says that, although, the issue arising in the present petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner, unlike the Concentrix case, ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application stands closed too.   ------------------- Notes :- 1. In short 'Concentrix Case' 2. "27. Mr Sastri mentioned more than once the fact that the Company would have sufficient opportunity to raise this question viz. whether the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that underassessment had resulted from non-disclosure of material facts, before the Income Tax Officer himself in the assessment proceedings and if unsuccessful there before the appellate officer or the Appellate Tribunal or in the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact." 5. "16.4 For the sake of brevity, I would advert to principles e....