D.giridharan v. Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 9[3],Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER W.P.No.4174 of 2017and W.M.P.No.4331 of 2017 D.Giridharan ... Petitioner Vs Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 9[3],Room No.212, 2nd Floor, Wanarparthy Block,No.121, MG Road, Chennai-34. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the records of the respondent in hisproceedings leading to passing of the order videAHYPG9179R/2014-15 dated 06.02.2017, quash the same and directthe respondent to pass rectification order after providing anopportunity of personal hearing. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathiyanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.T.Pramod kUmar Chopda O R D E R 1. Issue notice. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda accepts noticeon behalf of the respondent. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, thecaptioned Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing anddisposal. 3. By this Writ Petition, challenge is made to the orderdated 06.02.2017 passed by the respondent, whereby in effect,petitioner's request for rectification made vide communicationdated 02.02.2017 was rejected. 4. Briefly, the petitioner's case is that, while filinghis Income Tax Returns, the purchases made for relevantAssessment Year 2014-15 was indicated as Rs.7,06,51,037/-, asagainst the figure, which ought to have been shown, which, isRs.8,06,51,037/-. According to the petitioner, this was aclerical error. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.1. The fact that it is a clerical error was sought tobe demonstrated by the petitioner by relying upon the Tax AuditReport dated 29.09.2014 generated under section 44AB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and, the monthly return filed in therequisite form, with the Sales Tax Department for the relevantperiod. 5.To be noted is, so far as the representation dated02.02.2017 was concerned, while it indicates that annexureshave been appended, the details of annexures is not given. 5.1. The record also shows that after the issuance of theimpugned order dated 06.02.2017, yet another representation wasmade, which is, dated 08.02.2017. In the said representation,there is a reference to the fact that in the Sales Tax Returnsfiled by the petitioner, purchases made in the relevant year hadbeen declared at the correct figure i.e., Rs.8,06,51,037/-. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid documents, I aminclined to set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2017, witha direction to the respondent to take into account, not only theTax Audit Report, but also disclosures made by the petitioner,in his Sales Tax returns for the relevant period. 7. The respondent will, accordingly, pass a fresh order,after giving due opportunity to the petitioner of a personalhearing. If additional documents are required to be filed bythe respondent, that aspect will be up to the petitioner, whowill supply the same. Needless to say, the respondent will passa speaking order; a copy of which will be supplied to thepetitioner. 8.The Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the aforesaiddirections. Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Petitionstands closed. There shall, however, be no order as tocosts. Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 9(3)Room No. 212, 2[nd] Floor, Wanaparthy Block,No.121, M.G. Road, Chennai- 600 034. +1cc to Mr.T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate Sr. 10555+1cc to Mr.S. Sathiyanarayanan, Advocate Sr. 10818 W.P.No.4174 of 2017andW.M.P.No.4331 of 2017NMI(CO)VR(27/03/2017)