M/S.narayanan Chettiar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai - 600 006
High Court
12 Sep 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
M/S.narayanan Chettiar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai - 600 006
Date of order
12 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
1990-1991
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.narayanan Chettiar Industries v. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai - 600 006, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled for further amount or not cannot be decided straight away in this writ petition.
Decision: This Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
W.P.No.18584 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.18584 of 2023
M/s.Narayanan Chettiar Industries,Represented by its PartnerRm.Subramaniyam,14, Davidson Street,Chennai - 600 001.... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non-Corporate Range 12, Room No.15, Wing 2nd Floor, Tower-2, BSNL Building, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue the refund due to the petitioner in PAN : for the Assessment Year 1990-1991 along with interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
____________
For Petitioner: Ms.T.C.A.Sangeetha
For Respondents: Dr.B.Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue the refund due to the petitioner in PAN :
for the Assessment Year 1990-1991 along with interest under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have credited a sum of Rs.54,13,466/- to the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner, a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has to be
paid, however, the same has not been paid by the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The petitioner has got substantial relief during the pendency of the present writ petition.
7. Whether the petitioner is entitled for further amount or not cannot be decided straight away in this writ petition.
8. Under these circumstances, Court is inclined to dispose this writ petition by directing the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the first respondent giving all the particulars of the amounts that are yet to be paid by them.
9. The representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The first respondent shall thereafter dispose the representation of
the petitioner within a period of thirty days thereafter.
11. This Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
12.09.2023
Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation : Yes/No
arb
To
1.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non-Corporate Range 12, Room No.15, Wing 2nd Floor, Tower-2, BSNL Building, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis____________Page No. 5 of 5
W.P.No.18584 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.arb
W.P.No.18584 of 2023
12.09.2023
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.