Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.11.2017 Rohini Holdings Private Limited,New No.137, (Old No.67), Chamiers Road,Chennai – 600 028Represented by its Director,Mr.R.Chandramouli... PetitionerVs. 1.The Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Company Circle V(4), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records of the impugned order inC.No.3032/8/III/2006-07 dated 28.02.2008 passed by the firstrespondent herein and quash the same and further directing thesecond respondent to exclude doubly taxed income in the hands ofthe petitioner. ORDERHeard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.Navin Durai Babu, learned Junior Counsel for therespondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challengingthe order passed by the 1[st] respondent under Section 264 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The said petition was filed contendingthat during the course of assessment proceedings, the AssessingOfficer observed that since the petitioner was still contesting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the additions in the earlier years, they cannot delete thoseincomes in the assessment years 2003-2004 and counter thisargument, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 154 torectify the assessment by deleting these amounts with anassurance that in case, they succeed in the Tax Case Appealpending before this Court for the year 2000-2001, the petitionerwill not have any objection at all in subsequent revision ofassessment for the year 2003-2004 by adding those incomes in thesaid assessment year. In spite of such a stand taken before theAssessing Officer, he has rejected the petitioner's applicationfor rectification against which the revision petition was filedbefore the 1[st] respondent under Section 264 of the Act. The saidrevision petition was dismissed by the impugned order. It maynot be necessary for this Court to test the correctness of theimpugned proceedings on account of the subsequent development,which took place during the pendency of the writ petition. 3.As noticed earlier, the petitioner had filed Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.1074 of 2004, 1184 of 2008 and 502 and 704 of 2009before the Division Bench. In so far as the relevant assessmentyear is concerned, viz., 2003-2004, the Appeal in T.C.No.704 of2009, the Hon'ble Division Bench, by common Judgment dated16.08.2011 [reported in (2012) 345 ITR 0446 (Rohini Holdings (P)Ltd., V. Commissioner of Income Tax)], allowed the said appealand the operative portion of the Judgment reads as follows:“28.In the light of the abovesaid fact, theTribunal's order as regards the assessmentfor the asst. yr. 2003-04 in respect of theappeal in Tax Case No.704 of 2009 is setaside and the same is allowed in part, witha direction to the AO to redo the same,taking note that the interest income at Rs.52.50 lakhs has to be assessed under each ofthe assessment year starting from 2000-01onwards.” 4.Thus, the Assessing Officer has to implement the Judgmentrendered in T.C.(A).No.704 of 2009 and the impugned order inthis writ petition will not come in the way of the AssessingOfficer implementing the direction issued by the Division Bench.Thus, the challenge to the impugned proceedings has becomeacademic and it would suffice to make an observation thatnotwithstanding the impugned proceedings passed by the 1[st]respondent, the Assessing Officer shall implement the Judgmentpassed by the Division Bench as noted above. 5.With the above observation, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-)//True Copy// 4.Thus, the Assessing Officer has to implement the Judgmentrendered in T.C.(A).No.704 of 2009 and the impugned order inthis writ petition will not come in the way of the AssessingOfficer implementing the direction issued by the Division Bench.Thus, the challenge to the impugned proceedings has becomeacademic and it would suffice to make an observation thatnotwithstanding the impugned proceedings passed by the 1[st]respondent, the Assessing Officer shall implement the Judgmentpassed by the Division Bench as noted above. 5.With the above observation, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-)//True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarSglTo1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Designated Authority), Coimbatore. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur South, Tirupur.+1cc to Mr.V.S.Jayakumar Advocate, S.R.No. 78889+1cc to Mr.Hemamurali krishnan Advocate, S.R.No. 78858W.P.No.13612 of 2009TR(30/11/2017)