K.t.kunjumon v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU K.T.KunjumonS/o.Thomas ...Petitionervs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 1(4)No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Tax Recovery Officer,Central-1,Room No.321, 3rd FloorNew No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034. ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records on the file of the second respondentin TRO/Misc/2018-2019 issuing the impugned proceedings dated05.06.2018, quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid ofmerit and direct the second respondent to recalculate theinterest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 forthe impugned block assessment period from 01.04.1986 to31.03.1996 from the date immediately following the end of theperiod mentioned in the demand notice under Section 156 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 with respect to the final assessmentorder dated 30.10.2009. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedingsof the second respondent dated 05.06.2018, wherein andwhereby, the petitioner was requested to redeem the documentsand submit the same before the Department so as to enable theDepartment to proceed with sale of property by auction and adjust the sale proceeds towards the Income tax dues. Whilemaking such intimation, the second respondent has alsoreferred to the payment of interest as if to be calculatedfrom 01.03.1999 onwards from the date of the originalassessment order. Therefore, the present writ petition isfiled challenging the said communication mainly by contendingthat the original assessment order having been set aside,interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,ought to be calculated only from the final assessment orderdated 30.10.2009 and not from 01.03.1999, as referred to inthe impugned communication. By making such contention, thepresent writ petition is filed with further direction to therespondents to recalculate the interest under Section 220(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the impugned block assessmentperiod from 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1996. 2. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit andalso an additional counter affidavit. The stand taken by thesecond respondent in the counter affidavit is that thecommunication challenged in this writ petition is notproceedings and only a communication informing the Assesseeabout the potential interest liability arising on account ofthe outstanding demand pending in his case and that theworking is only a tentative calculation made on the basis ofavailable record. It is further stated in the counteraffidavit that the final working of interest chargeable underthe provisions of Section 220(2) and also under the otherprovisions of the Act would be computed only after payment ofoutstanding tax demand and the same would be communicated tothe petitioner by way of an order/proceedings. Thus, it isstated by the second respondent that the impugnedcommunication is only tentative working and it is only acommunication and not an order and hence, there is no cause ofaction for the petitioner to approach this Court and file thepresent writ petition. 3. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the tenure of the communication challenged inthis writ petition would show that the second respondent hasalready taken a decision to levy interest from 01.03.1999onwards and therefore, the petitioner has rightly filed thepresent writ petition. However, he is not disputing the factthat the petitioner has made their objections dated 11.06.2018in response to the impugned communication, more particularly,disputing the date from which, interest has to be calculated. 3. Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the tenure of the communication challenged inthis writ petition would show that the second respondent hasalready taken a decision to levy interest from 01.03.1999onwards and therefore, the petitioner has rightly filed thepresent writ petition. However, he is not disputing the factthat the petitioner has made their objections dated 11.06.2018in response to the impugned communication, more particularly,disputing the date from which, interest has to be calculated. 4. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel for therespondents submitted that the impugned communication is notan order/proceedings and therefore, it is premature for thepetitioner to approach this Court and seek relief, moreparticularly, by asking this Court to decide as to from whichdate, the interest has to be calculated. He thus, submittedthat only when an order is passed adjudicating levy ofinterest, the petitioner has to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the said order before appropriate forum. Thus,he submitted that the impugned communication is only tentativecalculation made based on the available record and however,final working of interest chargeable under the provisions ofSection 220(2) would be computed only after payment ofoutstanding tax due and the same would be communicated to thepetitioner by way of an order/proceedings. 5. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances,more particularly, the stand taken by the Revenue in theircounter in respect of the impugned communication dated05.06.2018, it clearly indicates that it is only a tentativecalculation made and that the final working of interestchargeable would be computed only after payment of outstandingtax and the same would be communicated to the petitioner byway of an order/proceedings. Hence, I find that the presentwrit petition challenging the impugned communication is highlypremature. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of,without expressing any view on the merits of the contentionsraised by both parties, however, by granting liberty to thepetitioner to work out his remedy as and when the demand ofinterest is made by issuing an order/proceedings. It is madeclear that the disposal of this writ petition as observedsupra, will not stand in the way of the Revenue to collect thetax dues from the petitioner in a manner known to law. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// mkTo Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 1(4)No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 2.The Tax Recovery Officer,Central-1,Room No.321, 3rd FloorNew No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-600 034. +1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate Sr.87405 ln[co]srg 21/11/2019 W.P.No.19393 of 2018