Case LawHigh Court › Maneesh Parmar v. Assistant Commissioner...

Maneesh Parmar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 3(1)Investigation Building

High Court 21 Nov 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Maneesh Parmar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 3(1)Investigation Building
Date of order
21 Nov 2024
Assessment year(s)
2019-2020
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Maneesh Parmar v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 3(1)Investigation Building, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, these writ appeals are dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN W.A.Nos.3332, 3327, 3328, 3330, 3333 & 3335 of 2024 andCMP.Nos.25871, 25865, 25864, 25867, 25875 & 25883 of 2024 andW.A.Nos.1271, 1339, 1342, 1373, 1322, 1384, 1452, 1274, 1312, 1313,1314, 1315, 1317, 1319, 1320, 1375, 1376, 1379, 1323, 1456, 1380, 1468& 1454 of 2024 andCMP.Nos.9586, 9590, 9542, 9547, 9549, 9551, 9557, 10469, 10374,9664, 9885, 9564, 9655, 9922, 10368, 10370, 9896, 9928, 9278, 9562,9898, 9921 & 9271 of 2024 WA.No.3332 of 2024 Maneesh Parmar .. Appellant vs Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 3(1)Investigation Building, No.46 (Old No.108),Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034... Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment passed in WP.No.13125 of 2023 dated 18.01.2024 by this Court. (In all WAs)For Appellants: Ms.N.Madhusruthi For Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.ANR.Jayaprathap, Junior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J) In W.A.Nos.3328, 3333, 3335, 1271, 1339, 1342, 1322, 1384, 1452, 1274, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1317, 1319, 1320, 1376, 1379, 1456, 1380, 1468 & 1454 of 2024 the challenge is to an order of the writ Court dated 18.01.2004, which dealt with grounds assailing orders of assessment passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). 2.The writ Court has dismissed the writ petitions as against which, the present appeals have been filed. 3.Both learned counsel would bring to the notice of the Court that post institution of the writ appeals, the appellants have instituted statutory appeals, the details of which are extracted below, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). They would also confirm that they have raised all necessary grounds in those appeals, including on the aspect of assumption of jurisdiction. 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4.In such circumstances, we see no reasons to entertain these writ appeals as the appellants are seen to be riding two horses, which is W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch impermissible. Hence, these writ appeals are dismissed. It is made clear that none of the observations made by the learned Judge in order dated 18.01.2024 will stand in the way of the appellant in the adjudication of the appeals, that shall be decided in accordance with law. 5.As far as the appeals in WA.Nos.1373, 1375, 1323, 3332, 3327 and 3330 of 2024 are concerned, the position is slightly different. Those assessments were made in the cases of two individuals, Maneesh Parmar and Sunil Khetpalia, who are stated to be Directors in the companies, which are appellants in the other writ appeals. The directions of the writ Court in relation to those six matters is as follows: '114.From reading the tables, the amount of “unexplained income” for the Assessment year 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 has been added to the accounts of both the directors of M/s.KLP Projects Private Limited, i.e., Manish Parmar and Mr. Sunil Khetpalia. 115.Therefore, the Impugned Orders in W.P. 13119, 13125, 13129, 16431, 12018, 12021 of 2023 are liable to be quashed and cases are remanded back to the respondents to redo the exercise by adding the unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the income of the Petitioner. 116.Therefore, to the extent of the impugned orders dated 31.03.2023, in the case of the respective assessment order under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the above two Petitioner are liable to be quashed and is remitted back to the respondent. W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch 115.Therefore, the Impugned Orders in W.P. 13119, 13125, 13129, 16431, 12018, 12021 of 2023 are liable to be quashed and cases are remanded back to the respondents to redo the exercise by adding the unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the income of the Petitioner. 116.Therefore, to the extent of the impugned orders dated 31.03.2023, in the case of the respective assessment order under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the above two Petitioner are liable to be quashed and is remitted back to the respondent. W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch 117.In so far as the assessment orders which have been quashed in the case of the directors of the Writ Petitions are concerned, the Assessing Officer shall pass a denovo order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.' 6.Learned counsel for the appellants is primarily aggrieved by the fact that, while directing de novo assessment as per paragraph 116, the learned Judge has, at paragraph 115, added a caveat that 'the unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961' shall be added to the income of the appellants. 7.We see some merit in this contention, as the assessment has been remanded to be re-done, de novo. Hence, it is appropriate that the question of unexplained income to be taxed under Section 69A, also be considered by the assessing authority, in accordance with law. The contents of paragraph 115 shall not be read as a direction to the assessing officer, who is at liberty to conduct the assessment proceedings afresh. 8.WA.Nos.1373, 1375, 1323, 3332, 3327 and 3330 of 2024 are dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. Index:Yes/NoSpeaking orderNeutral Citation:Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis [A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J] 21.11.2024 vs To Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle 3(1)Investigation Building, No.46 (Old No.108),Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034. W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch W.A.Nos.3332 of 2024 etc. batch DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.andG. ARUL MURUGAN.,J vs W.A.Nos.3332, 3327, 3328, 3330,3333 & 3335 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.1271, 1339, 1342, 1373, 1322,1384, 1452, 1274, 1312, 1313, 1314,1315, 1317, 1319, 1320, 1375, 1376,1379, 1323, 1456, 1380, 1468 & 1454 of 2024 21.11.2024
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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 — 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 · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan