Manjula Athur v. The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 13(5) Room

Manjula AthurW/o.Athur Balamuni Reddy...Petitionervs. The Income Tax OfficerNon-Corporate Ward 13(5)Room No.402, 4th Floor,Annexe Building, Aayakar BhawanNo.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai-600 034....Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for therecords in PAN: /2013-2014 dated 22.01.2019 relating tothe assessment year 2013-2014 on the file of the respondent andquash the same. Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel (IT)takes notice for the respondent. By consent of both theparties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at theadmission stage itself. 3. The petitioner is an Assessee under the respondent. Inrespect of the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner filedthe returns of income on 30.12.2014. However, the AssessingOfficer issued notice dated 08.06.2016 under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment. Thepetitioner challenged the reopening by filing a writ petition in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.33318 of 2017 and this Court, disposed of the said writpetition on 27.02.2018, by directing the Assessing Officer tofurnish the reasons for reopening and also, by granting libertyto the petitioner to file her objections/reply on suchreasonings. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer furnished thereasons for reopening. The petitioner filed her objectionsagainst the reasons for reopening. Thereafter, the AssessingOfficer rejected the objections through proceedings dated25.04.2018 and the same was put to challenge before this Courtin WP.No.19746 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 24.08.2018has dismissed the said writ petition. Thereafter, the presentimpugned order of assessment was passed on 22.01.2019. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe impugned order was passed without providing sufficientopportunity to the petitioner to furnish her objections ordetails. It is stated that the petitioner was bedridden at therelevant point of time and she was not in a position to attendthe hearing fixed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learnedcounsel contended that the petitioner is having all the relevantmaterials and therefore, she may be permitted to go before theAssessing Officer and produce the materials so as to enable himto pass fresh order of assessment on consideration of suchmaterials. 5. Per contra, the learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner wasprovided with sufficient opportunity to place the materialdetails before the Assessing Officer on more than one occasionand therefore, she cannot complaint, as if she was not providedwith sufficient opportunity. Therefore, he contended that, asthe petitioner has not come forward with any material details,the Assessing Officer has rightly passed the order ofassessment. He further submitted that the petitioner can alwayschallenge the said order by filing an appeal before theAppellate Authority and therefore, this Court need not entertainthe present writ petition. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed beforethis Court. 7. The impugned order of assessment was passed in pursuantto reopening of the assessment for the relevant assessment year2013-2014. The petitioner had already approached this Court ontwo occasions, one immediately, on receipt of notice forreopening and another after rejection of the objections raisedagainst the reasons for reopening. Though the petitionersucceeded in her first attempt, where, this Court has directedthe Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons and consider theobjections of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass the order,whereas, in the second attempt, challenging the order rejecting 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed beforethis Court. 7. The impugned order of assessment was passed in pursuantto reopening of the assessment for the relevant assessment year2013-2014. The petitioner had already approached this Court ontwo occasions, one immediately, on receipt of notice forreopening and another after rejection of the objections raisedagainst the reasons for reopening. Though the petitionersucceeded in her first attempt, where, this Court has directedthe Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons and consider theobjections of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass the order,whereas, in the second attempt, challenging the order rejecting her objection for reopening, has not been successful, as thisCourt has dismissed the writ petition as stated supra.Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly proceeded to passthe order of assessment. The question now to be answered iswhether the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunityor not before passing the order of assessment. 8. Perusal of the impugned order of assessment showsthat for five occasions, the matter was adjourned for theappearance of the Assessee and however, the Assessee failed toappear and not furnished any material details either in personor through authorized representative. Therefore, the AssessingOfficer has completed the assessment and passed the impugnedorder. When such being the factual position, I do not thinkthat the petitioner is entitled to canvass the correctness orotherwise of the impugned order by filing the present writpetition only by stating that she is having all the materialsand therefore, she must be permitted to get the matter reopenedby the Assessing Officer. I am not inclined to accept the saidrequest, as the petitioner can very well raise all thecontentions before the Appellate Authority by filing regularappeal, since such authority is also a fact finding authority. 9. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of thematter, this Writ Petition is disposed of, only by grantingliberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy by filing anappeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If anysuch appeal is filed within the time stipulated herein, theconcerned Appellate Authority shall take up the matter anddecide the same on merits and in accordance with law, withoutreference to the period of limitation. It is open to thepetitioner to seek for interim relief during pendency of theappeal and if any such interim application is filed by thepetitioner, the same shall be considered by the concernedAppellate Authority on merits and in accordance with law. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V)//True copy// mk Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Income Tax OfficerNon-Corporate Ward 13(5)Room No.402, 4th Floor,Annexe Building, Aayakar BhawanNo.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai-600 034. +1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.No.79806 +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate SR.No.78700 W.P.No.27245 of 2019PVS(CO)GMY(11/10/2019)