A.jesu Rajendran v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals Iii), Aayakar Bhavan, 121 Mg Road, Chennai-600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN A.Jesu Rajendran.. Appellant/PetitionerVs. 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III), Aayakar Bhavan, 121 MG Road, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Business Officer XIII(2), Room No.606, New Block, Aayakar Bhavan, No.121 MG Road, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondents/Respondents This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patentagainst the order dated 10.10.2014 made in W.P.No.9988 of 2014.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records onthe file of the second respondent contained in its Assessment orderdated 12.03.2014, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08 in PANNo.ACQPJ5627E and to quash the same as violating petitioner'sfundamental and constitutional rights and consequently to direct thesecond respondent or any of its subordinates, agents or any otherpersons to drop any proceeding initiated under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. For Appellant : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondents: Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, Sr. Standing Counsel for IT JUDGMENT Challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated10.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.9988 of 2014. 2.The appellant has preferred the writ petition, questioningthe legality and validity of the assessment order dated 12.03.2014passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08 in PAN No. asbeing violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights. It isfurther prayed to drop any proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.The learned Single Judge, having considered the provisionsof law and facts of the case, came to the conclusion that thepetitioner has statutory appellate remedy to take recourse to appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III) under Section 246of the Act. Thus, the writ court declined to interfere with theimpugned order, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach theappropriate appellate forum within a period of thirty days andfurther observing that the appeal would not be rejected on the groundof limitation, if any. 4.The writ petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred theinstant appeal against the said order of the writ court solely on theground that the alternative statutory remedy before the Commissioneris not efficacious as under the modified provisions, the appellateCommissioner has no power to remit the matter to the assessingofficer for the purpose of assessing the capital asset by referringthe same to the valuation officer. 5.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, theCommissioner (Appeals), while exercising power under Section 251(1)has powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, butnot to remit the matter back to the assessing officer for assessingthe value of the capital asset. Under Section 50C(2), the AssessingOfficer, while assessing the value of the capital asset, is requiredto refer the matter to the valuation officer. Thus, for want ofaforestated power of remitting back the matter for proper valuationof capital asset, the appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals)is not efficacious. 6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for theIncome Tax Department submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), whileexamining the matter in appeal, in exercise of the powers, may referthe matter for valuation. 6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for theIncome Tax Department submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), whileexamining the matter in appeal, in exercise of the powers, may referthe matter for valuation. 7.We have examined the legal provisions and facts carefully.We are also of the view that the contention of the counsel for thedepartment merit acceptance. The Commissioner, while examining theassessment order under the provisions of Section 251 of the Act in anappeal, may refer the matter to the valuation officer, if necessary,for the purpose of valuation of capital asset, as pleaded by thelearned counsel for the appellant. In that view of the matter, we areunable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for theappellant that the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is notefficacious. The remedy of appeal before the Commissioner isstatutory, efficacious and expeditious and the same cannot be brushedaside for the reasons pleaded by the appellant. 8.Resultantly, we dismiss the appeal. However, we grantfurther thirty days time from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder to prefer the statutory appeal before the appropriateauthority, if so advised. Further, we make it clear that in thatevent, the ground of limitation may not be considered by theappellate authority. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. vvkTo //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III), Aayakar Bhavan, 121 MG Road, Chennai-600 034.2.The Income Tax Officer, Business Officer XIII(2), Room No.606, New Block, Aayakar Bhavan, No.121 MG Road, Chennai-600 034. + 1 cc to Mr.T. Promodkumar, Advocate Sr.56843+ 1 cc to M/s. Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Sr.57107