M/S Srivatchaa Shelter v. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Wanaparthy Block, Iii Floor Room
High Court
22 Feb 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
M/S Srivatchaa Shelter v. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Wanaparthy Block, Iii Floor Room
Date of order
22 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Srivatchaa Shelter v. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Wanaparthy Block, Iii Floor Room, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 5.In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM
THE Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYW.P.No.5482 of 2016andWMP No.4828 of 2016
M/s Srivatchaa Shelter,No.14/24, Second Street,AWO SAI, Dhandayuthapani Nagar,Kotturpuram,Chennai – 600 085rep by its Partner.... Petitionervs
Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 2(4),Wanaparthy Block, III floorRoom No.319, Aayakar Bhavan,No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai – 600 032
..... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying this Court to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus to call for the records of the respondent in hisproceedings leading to passing of order dated 24.07.2015, quashthe same and direct the respondent to pass a stay order on thebasis of CBDT instruction No.96/1969.
For petitioners:Mr.S. Sathiyanarayananfor Mrs. Hema Murali KrishnanFor respondents:Mr.T. RavikumarStanding CounselORDER
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of therespondent in his proceedings leading to passing of order dated24.07.2015, quash the same and direct the respondent to pass astay order on the basis of CBDT instruction No.96/1969.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2.It is the case of the petiitonier that withoutfollowing CBDT Instruction No.96 of 1999, the impugned orderdated 24.07.2015 was passed by the respondent.
3.Mr.T. Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel, appearingfor the respondent, submitted that after passing of the orderdated 24.07.2015, the same was modified by the respondent by itsOrder dated 13.01.2016, thereby, directing the petitioner to pay50% of the tax. By Order dated 24.07.2015, the petitioner wasdirected to pay the entire tax, which was modified by therespondent, in its order dated 13.1.2016, to pay only 50% ofthe tax.
4.With regard to the order passed on 13.01.2016, thepetitioner has not stated anything in the affidavit, filed insupport of the writ petition. Since the order dated 24.07.2015,was modified by the respondent, the petitioner cannot challengethe order dated 24.07.2015. In all fairness, the petitionersshould have stated about the order dated 13.01.2016, passed bythe respondent, in the affidavit, filed in support of the writpetition. Suppressing the order dated 13.01.2016, the petitionerhas filed the writ petition, challenging the order dated24.07.2015, which is not in existence.
5.In these circumstances, the writ petition is liable tobe dismissed and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,the connected MP is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sr
To
Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 2(4),Wanaparthy Block, III floorRoom No.319, Aayakar Bhavan,No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai – 600 032
+1cc to M/s. S. Sathiyanarayanan, Advocate, S.R.No.10898+1cc to Mr.T. Ravikumare, Advocate, S.R.No.10858RSK(CO)EU(29/02/2015) W.P.No.5482 of 2016
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.