M.sekar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iii, Coimbatore
High Court
21 Sep 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
M.sekar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iii, Coimbatore
Date of order
21 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M.sekar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Iii, Coimbatore, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 21.09.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
WP.No.25484 of 2003
M.Sekar .. PetitionerVs
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore.
2.Commissioner of Income Tax, [Appeal-II], Coimbatore.
3.Union Bank of India, Gandhipuram Branch, 224, 100 Ft. Road, Tatabad, Coimbatore. Rep by its Senior Manager .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing therespondents from invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs.25,03,250/-issued by Union Bank of India, Gandhipuram Branch, Coimbatore,the 3[rd] respondent herein, in favour of Government of India[Commissioner of Income Tax], in the case of the petitionerMr.M.Sekar, pending disposal of the stay application in theappeal preferred by the Petitioner herein before the 2[nd]respondent challenging the Block Assessment Order dated12.08.2003 of the 1[st] respondent.
Heard Mr.P.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner; Mr.T.Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearingfor the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learnedcounsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent.
2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seekinghttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/direction to forbear the respondents from invoking the Bank
Guarantee of Rs.25,03,250/- issued by the 3[rd] respondentherein, in favour of the Commissioner of Income Tax, pendingdisposal of the stay application in the appeal by thePetitioner before the 2[nd] respondent, challenging the BlockAssessment Order dated 12.08.2003 passed by the 1[st] respondent.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the AssessingAuthority against the Block Assessment Order dated 12.08.2003at the relevant point of time i.e., in the year 2003. Thestay petition was pending before the Commissioner of IncomeTax [Appeals] and the Assessing Officer attempted to encashthe Bank Guarantee, which necessitated the petitioner toapproach this Court.
4. However, at the time, when the Writ Petition wasentertained on 12.09.2003, no interim order was granted.Subsequently, when the stay petition came for hearing on20.08.2004, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthe petition has become infructuous and the petition standsdismissed.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counselfor the petitioner submitted that he does not have any writteninstruction from the petitioner. The Department also does nothave any written instruction. To keep the Writ Petitionpending after so many years, is not going to serve anypurpose. At this distance of time, the appeal would have beendisposed of.
The Writ Petition stands closed, with liberty to thepetitioner to workout his rights in the manner known to law.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gyaTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Coimbatore.
2.Commissioner of Income Tax, [Appeal-II], Coimbatore.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Gandhipuram Branch, 224, 100 Ft. Road, Tatabad, Coimbatore.
1 cc to Mr.T.Pramodkumar, Advocate, 54359
ak cokra 17.10.2016
W.P.No.25484 of 2003
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.