V. GANESH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner puts in issue a letter of the Asstt. CIT, whereby he was informed by the first respondent that the Director of CBDT 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 TDS certificates furnished by the petitioner in respect of income from Hong Kong and as regards verification of TDS 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 Asstt. CIT pursuant to the request of the petitioner to verify the TDS 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.

(2.) 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 AO framed the assessment by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(3.) IF the petitioner is really aggrieved against the order of assessment or against the reasoning given by the director of CBDT 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 TDS 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.