V. Ganesh vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

K. Raviraja Pandian J.

The petitioner puts in issue a letter of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby he was informed by the first respondent that the

Director of Central Board of Direct Taxes had intimated that in the absence of any double taxation relief with Hong Kong tax authorities, it would

not be possible for the Department to verify the T. D. S. certificates furnished by the petitioner in respect of income from Hong Kong and as

regards verification of T. D. S certificates from the United States authorities, it was found on ascertainment that no tax has been deducted at source

as claimed by the assessee. The said letter is a piece of information furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax pursuant to the request

of the petitioner to verify the T. D. S. certificates with the Hong Kong and the United States authorities to sustain the claim of the petitioner that tax

has been deducted at source in those two countries.

It is the case of the petitioner that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of double taxation agreement in respect of the income earned from Hong

Kong and the United States. But the Assessing Officer framed the assessment by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

If the petitioner is really aggrieved against the order of assessment or against the reasoning given by the Director of Central Board of Direct

Taxes for non-suiting the petitioner for the relief claimed by him, the proper remedy for him would be to file an appeal or place the materials as

required under the Act to have the benefit before the authorities concerned. Filing of a writ petition challenging the letter by which the assessee was

informed that his request for verification of T. D. S. certificates furnished by him was not practicable would not serve any purpose. We do not find

any merit in the case of the petitioner and hence the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail of any

other remedy available to him under the Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.