Annamalai Nagar,Chidambaram-608 002 v. The Income Tax Officer,Ward I (1), S.n.chavady

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.11735 to 11740 of 2006 and WPMP Nos.13352 to 13357 of 2006 Annamalai University, rep. by its Registrar, Sri Rathinasabathi, Annamalai Nagar,Chidambaram-608 002. ... Petitioner in all W.Ps. Vs. The Income Tax Officer,Ward I (1), S.N.Chavady, Cuddalore. ... Respondent in all W.Ps. Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling forthe records of the respondent in P.A.N. AAALO 0031F dated07.02.2006 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01,20001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 respectively. Heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for therespondent. 2.The petitioner is a University, called AnnamalaiUniversity and they are aggrieved by the notices issued by therespondent proposing to reopen the income tax assessment for theassessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Though several groundshave been raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petitions, which have been dealt with in thecounter affidavit filed by the respondent, on account of certainsubsequent developments, there may not be any necessity for this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court to adjudicate into the issues raised by the petitioner.This is so because, the petitioner/University has been takenover by the Government, pursuant to the Annamalai UniversityAct, 2013 (Tamil Nadu Act, 20 of 2013) and from the date ofcommencement of the said Act, the petitioner/Universityestablished under the Annamalai University Act, 1928, shall bedeemed to have been established and incorporated under the Act20 of 2013. The entire administration of the University is nowgoverned by the 2013 Act. Therefore, it is the Registrar or theCompetent Authority, who is entitled to deal with subjectmatters under the 2013 Act should be the person, who has toprosecute the matter further. 3.Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court atthe stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Inresponse to the impugned notice, the petitioner sent a replydated 09.03.2006, stating that they had the benefit of exemptionunder the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by notification dated23.11.1946. However, the copy of such exemption has not beenplaced in the typed set of papers filed along with the writpetitions. Therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate as towhat is the effect of such exemption and whether it will enurein favour of the petitioner eternally. Prima facie it appearsthat even if such exemption was available, it may not have beenan exemption for ever, more particularly, when the Universityhas now been taken over by the Government pursuant to the TamilNadu Act, 20 of 2013. 4.So far as the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of theAct is concerned, the petitioner/University themselves wouldadmit in their letter dated 09.03.2006, that they have appliedfor such exemption and final orders are awaited. 4.So far as the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of theAct is concerned, the petitioner/University themselves wouldadmit in their letter dated 09.03.2006, that they have appliedfor such exemption and final orders are awaited. 5.The counter affidavit filed by the respondent stated thattill date, no exemption as such under Section 10(23C) of the Acthas been granted and it is only after issuance of the impugnednotice, the petitioner has made an application for suchexemption and even for considering such an application ofexemption, documentary evidence is required to support theirclaim among other things. The other contentions raised by thepetitioner have also been dealt with by the respondent in theircounter affidavit. In any event, in terms of the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India)Ltdv v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19, the guidelines havebeen prescribed as to what procedure the assessee has to adopton being served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act. till date, no exemption as such under Section 10(23C) of the Acthas been granted and it is only after issuance of the impugnednotice, the petitioner has made an application for suchexemption and even for considering such an application ofexemption, documentary evidence is required to support theirclaim among other things. The other contentions raised by thepetitioner have also been dealt with by the respondent in theircounter affidavit. In any event, in terms of the decision ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India)Ltdv v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19, the guidelines havebeen prescribed as to what procedure the assessee has to adopton being served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 6.In terms of the said decision, the assessee is entitled toseek reasons for reopening of the assessment and if such requestis made, the assessing officer is bound to furnish the reasonsfor reopening and on receipt of the reasons for reopening, thepetitioner is entitled to submit their objections, which have tobe dealt with by the assessing officer and an order has to bepassed thereof. It is thereafter open to the assessee toquestion the order, if they are so advised. Therefore, thepresent writ petitions are premature in the sense that thepetitioner has not sought for the reasons for reopening of theassessment. 7.Thus, for the above reasons, this Court is inclined todispose of the writ petitions with the following direction:- The petitioner/University through the competent authority interms of Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 2013 is directed to address therespondent requesting for reasons for reopening and therespondent is directed to furnish the reasons for reopeninggiving sufficient time to the petitioner/University to submittheir objections to the reopening proceedings. On receipt ofthe objections, the respondent shall consider the same and passa speaking order on merits and in accordance with law andcommunicate the same to the petitioner. Since the petitioner hasbeen granted an order of interim injunction, which has beenremained in force from 26.04.2006, the same shall continue tillthe above direction/procedures is complete. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. abrTo The Income Tax Officer,Ward I (1), S.N.Chavady, Cuddalore. +1 cc to Mr.K.Sathish kumar Advocate sr 285 W.P.Nos.11735 to 11740 of 2006 aa24/01/2018