Dr.s.panneerselvam v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Special Investigation Circle), Salem-7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos.18695 and 18696 of 2006 Dr.S.Panneerselvam ..Petitioner in both W.Ps. vs. 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Special Investigation Circle), Salem-7. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), A3-2nd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090, represented by the Assistant Registrar. ..Respondents in both W.Ps. Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for records inI.T.A.Nos.2502/1993 and 2501/1993 relating to the Assessment Years1987-88 and 1984-85 respectively on the file of the second respondentand quash the orders dated 27.11.2000. For Petitioner : Mr.K.RamagopalFor 1[st] Respondent : Mr.K.Subramanian COMMON ORDER The Writ Petitions are filed to issue Writ of Certiorari,calling for records in I.T.A.Nos.2502/1993 and 2501/1993 relating tothe Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1984-85 respectively on the file ofthe second respondent and quash the orders dated 27.11.2000. 2. When the matters were listed on 19.10.2009, there was norepresentation on behalf of the petitioner. Today also there is norepresentation on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.K.Subramanian,learned counsel appearing for the Department/first respondent ispresent and the matter is taken up and disposed off on merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The orders, which are challenged in the two writ petitions,are final orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal interms of Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As against suchorders, if the assessee is aggrieved, he is entitled to file anappeal before this court under Section 260A(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which reads as follows:- "260A.(1) An appeal shall lie to the HighCourt from every order passed in appeal by theAppellate Tribunalbefore the date ofestablishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if theHigh Court is satisfied that the case involves asubstantial question of law. 4. In these two cases, the writ petitioner without exhaustingthe appeal remedy as provided under the statute has chosen to filethe writ petitions challenging the final order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal dated 27.11.2000 after six years on 14.6.2006.There is no proper reason given for the delay. In any event, thewrit petitions are not maintainable in view of the alternative remedyprovided under the statute. 5. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed on theground that the writ petitioner has failed to pursue the alternativeremedy under the statue and also on the ground of delay and lacheswhich has not been explained. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Special Investigation Circle), Salem-7. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), A3-2nd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600 090. + 2 c.cs. to M/s. K. Subramaniam, Advocate. S.R.Nos.55325 & 55324. W.P.Nos.18695 & 18696 of 2006 SSK (CO)GSK 06.11.2009.