TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh and Ms. Muskaan Goel, Advocates for R-4 & 5. JUDGEMENT TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL) 1. By way of the present Letters Patent Appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15188/2024 (hereinafter referred to as "impugned order") dismissing the underlying writ petition on the ground that since the relevant records have been destroyed, and the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relied upon by the petitioner, being inapplicable for a significant portion of the claim, any direction to issue the accountant certificate in Form 26A under the Act would be practically unenforceable. The underlying writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nificant challenges in complying with the Petitioner's request. It has been categorically stated that physical records for the period prior to 1st April 2013 are unavailable, having been destroyed during the 2015 floods. Without these records, AAI cannot verify whether the income corresponding to the Petitioner's payments was included in its computation of taxable income, a precondition for issuing the certificate in Form 26A under the Income Tax Act. The said communication reads as under: From: TAX CHQ AAI Sent: 27 November 2024 10:53 To: Law CHQ Cc: ED Finance 1; GM(LAW),CHQ; GM Tax Cell, CHQ; Geeta Pandey; Shubham Gupta; Shivam Aggarwal; Jitendra Sharma Subject: Fw: URGENT ACTION-WP(C) No. 1518....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9 18.10.2010 2,00,000.00 DD-918305 10 18.10.2010 14,52,322.00 DD-918196 Value is differing with Court schedule 11 03.09.2011 39,23,305.00 DD-351055 Value is differing with Court schedule 12 14.01.2011 47,25,000.00 DD-351046 DD no. is differing with Court schedule 13 17.03.2014 3,50,000.00 NEFT 14 23.04.2014 1,12,943.00 NEFT 4) The payments indicated under sl no. 13 & 14 are received during SAP Period and it is confirmed the same has been accounted as Revenue in AAI Books in the relevant FY. Further it is to inform no TDS been deducted by the agency on these payments 5) Further, Form 26A is issued by Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... New Delhi-110003. Phone:- 011-24632950. Extn: 2177/2159 3. Moreover, the Respondents have apprised the Court that the first proviso to Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, governing the issuance of such certificates, became effective only on 1st July 2012. Consequently, the financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13, which constitute the crux of the Petitioner's grievance, are not covered by the said provision. Thus, even on merits, the relief sought for that period is unsustainable. 4. In light of the above, considering the fact that the relevant records have been destroyed and statutory provision is inapplicable for a significant portion of the claim, any direction to issue the certificate would be practically....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for respondent No. 2/Executive Director (Finance) and respondent No. 3/AAI by referring to Section 201 of the Act to submit that any person who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the Act does not so deduct, then without prejudice to any other consequences, the said person would be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax. He submits that the reliance of the appellant on the proviso to Section 201 of the Act is misplaced for the reason that the said proviso was inserted with effect from 01.07.2012, and the period of controversy or claim of the appellant pertains to a period prior thereto. In other words, he submits that so far as the default in not deducting the tax is concerned, the appellant cannot wriggle ....