Jaganmohan v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 5Nungambakkam, Chennai-34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Jaganmohan...Petitioner vs. 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 3.The Income Tax OfficerNon-Corporate Ward-3(1)Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords of the 3rd respondent made in the assessment order dated14.12.2018 for AY 2011-2012 insofar as the petitioner isconcerned and to quash the same. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of theassessment dated 14.12.2018 passed under Section 144 read withSection 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to theassessment year 2011-2012. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The impugned assessment order was passed pursuant to andconsequence of reopening of the assessment under Section 147 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, as against the impugnedorder of assessment, a statutory appellate remedy is availableto the petitioner. However, the present writ petition is filedspecifically by contending that notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, was not served on the petitioner andtherefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learnedcounsel appearing for the Revenue that the notice was issued tothe petitioner on 29.03.2018 and dispatched to the petitioner onthe very same day from Teynampet Post Office, through speed postand therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contend as ifthe notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wasnot issued. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for thepetitioner contended that no such notice was ever served on thepetitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that based on the query made under the Right toInformation Act, it was found that the said consignment wasbooked from Kottayam Post Office and therefore, the respondentsare not justified in claiming that such notice was issuedthrough their office. 6. In support of the contention that the notice wasdispatched from the office of the respondent on 29.03.2018, thelearned counsel for the Revenue produced the original DispatchRegister, wherein, it is shown that the petitioner wasdispatched with a communication on 29.03.2018 through speedpost. It is also seen that the Postal Department affixed sealon the said register, which, in the considered view of thisCourt, is enough proof for supporting the contention of theRevenue that the notice was sent to the petitioner on29.03.2018. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not think that thepetitioner is entitled to canvass the merits of the assessmentorder before this Court without challenging the same by filingregular appeal. Accordingly, without expressing any view on themerits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of bygranting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before theconcerned authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed,the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordancewith law without reference to the period of limitation. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mk To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxNon-Corporate Ward-3Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.92252 W.P.No.3625 of 2019 PP(CO)CS/13/12/2019