C.k.logadoss v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Viii, Vi Floor, Kannammai Buildings
High Court
03 Dec 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
C.k.logadoss v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Viii, Vi Floor, Kannammai Buildings
Date of order
03 Dec 2019
Assessment year(s)
2005-2006
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In C.k.logadoss v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Viii, Vi Floor, Kannammai Buildings, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P.NO.21043 OF 2015
C.K.Logadoss
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax – VIII, VI Floor, Kannammai Buildings, No.611, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward – VIII (3), I Floor, Kannammai Buildings, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitutionof India, Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relatingto the impugned order of the 1[st] respondent in File No.C.No.861(13)/CIT-VIII/2013-14 dated 18.07.2014 and quash the same asillegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act.
For Petitioner
For Respondents
: Mr.K.Soundararajan: M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan
The petitioner had sold agricultural lands along with hisbrothers and sisters. One of the brothers namelyC.K.Theerthagiri, who was a co-owner received a notice statingthat he would be liable to pay tax.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged inthis writ petition, the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1956. Theoperative portion of the order reads as follows:-
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
petition deserves to be rejected.(i) Assessee himself admitted LTCG inthe return of income and hence there is noquestion of praying against her own claim.(i) The verdict of 'B' bench of ITAT,Chennai on which petitioner relied uponhas not been accepted but challenged inMadras High Court, and has not reachedfinality. Therefore the above verdictcannot be taken as precedent.6.Consideringthefactsandcircumstances as discussed above theprayer of the petitioner to give relief asin the case of Late CK.Ramachandran cannotbe acceded to. Accordingly, the petitionis disposed of by rejecting the request ofthe petitioner.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is 80 years old, who has sold agricultural land alongwith his brother and sisters, wherein, one of the brothersnamely C.K.Theerthagiri was a co-owner. The respondent(Revenue) had proposed the tax C.K.Theerthagiri andC.K.Ramachandran, for long term capital gains. Since, theamount of sale consideration of the share between the brothersand sisters was not shown by the petitioner in his return, hefiled a revised return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act,on 13.12.2011, pursuant to which, the Assessment Order came tobe passed by the 2[nd] respondent on 13.03.2013. It is furthersubmitted that the case relating to the petitioner's brother andsisters were ultimately disposed by two separate orders in ITANo.1957/Mds/2013 dated 06.01.2014 for the Assessment year 2005-2006 and ITA No.2083/MDS/2013 dated 18.02.2014. These orderswere challenged by the respondent(revenue) in Tax Case (Appeal)Nos.505 of 2014 and 686 of 2014. These appeals were dismissedin view of the litigation policy of the Government.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thematter may be remanded back to the 1[st] respondent to pass aspeaking order in terms of the decision of the Tribunal whichwere impugned in T.C.No.505 of 2014 and T.C.No.686 of 2014.The learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue) has noobjection for the matter being remanded back to the 1[st]respondent to pass a speaking order in terms of the decision ofthe Tribunal in the case of the petitioner's siblings. Thepetitioner is aged 80 years as on the date of the filing WritPetition. The Commissioner of Income Tax the 1[st] respondent istherefore requested to pass speaking order within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order inaccordance with law, taking note of the decision of the
Tribunal. Needless to state before passing such order, thepetitioner shall be heard by the 1[st] respondent.
Tribunal. Needless to state before passing such order, thepetitioner shall be heard by the 1[st] respondent.
5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition standsdisposed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar
//True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarjasTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax – VIII, VI Floor, Kannammai Buildings, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.2. The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward – VIII (3), I Floor, Kannammai Buildings, No.611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.+1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate, S.R.No.101254+1cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.100797W.P.No.21043 of 2015CP(CO)CS/11/02/2020
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.