Case Law β€Ί High Court β€Ί K.s.velusamy v. Https://Hcservices.ecour...

K.s.velusamy v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

High Court 11 Dec 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· hc_cis_mas
Parties
K.s.velusamy v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices
Date of order
11 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
β€”
Outcome
Dismissed

The order β€” as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In K.s.velusamy v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition andthus, the same is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below β€” read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABUW.P.No.31141 of 2018andW.M.P.No.36338 of 2018 K.S.Velusamy ...Petitionervs. 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.2. Income Tax Officer, Non-Cooperative Ward 22(5) 2[nd] Floor, No.7, Ramakrishnan Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.3. The Tax Recovery Officer – 7 Room No.203, IInd Floor, New Block, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.4. The Branch Manager Equitar Small Finance Bank Limited, No.128, Rajaji Road, 1[st] Floor, West Mambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for theentire regards relating to impugned order passed by 3[rd]respondent in TRC No.146/AGUPV1463G/2017-2018/191 dated11.10.2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.J.Milton Arul RajendranFor Respondent :Mrs.Hema MuralikrishnanStanding Counsel for R1 to 3 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved against the notice dated11.10.2018 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act1961 to the Branch Manager, Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited,Chennai, calling upon them to pay the Assessing Officerforthwith any amount due from them on account of thepetitioner/assesseeuptotheamountofarrears ofRs.2,19,77,689/-. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is thatthe third respondent is not justified in issuing the impugnedproceedings, especially, when an appeal filed against the orderof assessment before the Tribunal is pending. It is stated inthe affidavit filed in respect of the writ petition that inrespect of assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, the assesseefiled an Income Tax Appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, C-Branch at Chennai, against the order of assessmentand a common order was passed in the stay petition, partlyallowing the same by directing the assessee to make a payment ofRs.75,00,000/- on or before 30.09.2018. Therefore, it iscontended that the third respondent is not justified in issuingthe impugned proceedings in the mean time. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3,based on instructions submitted that the petitioner has notcomplied with the conditional order passed by the Tribunal whilegranting stay and thus, the stay petition itself was dismissedlater. 4. The above statement made by the learned counsel for therespondents 1 to 3 is not disputed by the learned counselappearing for the petitioner. 5. It is seen that this writ petition was filed on08.11.2018 by which time, the time limit fixed by the Tribunalfor complying with the conditional order has already expired.The fact remains that the petitioner has not complied with theconditional order. However, the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition does not disclose the fact that the petitionerhas not complied with the conditional order. On the other hand,the averments stopped with the details regarding the orderpassed by the Tribunal and not the events that had taken placethereafter. Therefore, I find that the petitioner has notapproached this Court with clean hands and bonafide. When theconditional order passed by the Tribunal has not been compliedwith and the stay petition is also dismissed, I find that thereis no error on the part of the 3[rd] respondent in issuing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned proceedings so as to secure the interest of therevenue. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition andthus, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned proceedings so as to secure the interest of therevenue. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition andthus, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarsniTo1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.2. Income Tax Officer, Non-Cooperative Ward 22(5) 2[nd] Floor, No.7, Ramakrishnan Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.3. The Tax Recovery Officer – 7 Room No.203, IInd Floor, New Block, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.4. The Branch Manager Equitar Small Finance Bank Limited, No.128, Rajaji Road, 1[st] Floor, West Mambaram, Chennai – 600 045.+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate sr.no.86017 W.P.No.31141 of 2018ev(co)nr 07/01/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
βœ… File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) β†’ πŸ’¬ Ask our CA
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 β€” 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press Β· Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
Β© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP Β· LLPIN ACN-4920 Β· Jaipur, Rajasthan