Ms.nirmala Chandrasekaran v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle – Iii (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.749 of 2012 Ms.Nirmala Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – III (1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600034. 2. Income Tax Ombudsman (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, 6[th] Floor, Kannammai Building, 611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600006. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records inF.No.1205/I.T. Omb/Award No.3/11-12/1469 dated 28.09.2011 onthe file of the second respondent and quash the same andfurther direct the first respondent to pay over the amounts ofrefund due to the petitioner herein of a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-and a sum of Rs.36,12,255/- along with interest under Section244A of the Income Tax Act. For Petitioner: Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy Standing Counsel This writ petition is filed challenging the order of thesecond respondent dated 28.09.2011, wherein and whereby, thesecond respondent/Ombudsman disposed the complaint filed bythe assessee/petitioner dated 24.06.2010, in the light of theobservation made at paragraph No.6 of the order, which readsas below: “6.I have considered the averments made bythe complainant as also the reports of theAssessingOfficerdated17.06.2011and27.07.2011. When Section 179(1) was invoked in the case of the complainant, who was a directorin the company, M/s.Tarachanthini Services Pvt.Ltd., on 23.03.2009, there were outstandingarrears of Rs.23,02,02,277/- in the case of thecompany. I agree with the Assessing Officer thatonce the refund due to the assessee-complainant was adjusted against the arrears ofthe company, in which she was a director, theamount adjusted was no longer available in herhands. The refund, if any, arising thereafter inthe case of the company could be given only tothe company. Since arrears were outstanding inthe case of the company for the Asst.year 2001-02, the refund of Rs.41,60,906 determined for AY2000-01, was rightly adjusted against the same(the outstanding arrears).” 2. Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned standing counsel for therespondents submitted that in view of the guideline 13(iv) ofthe Income Tax Ombudsman 2010, the order impugned in this writpetition had already lapsed, since the petitioner has notgiven the letter of acceptance of the award within fifteendays from the date of receipt of a copy of the award.Therefore, he submitted that since the award passed by thesecond respondent, which is put to challenge in this writpetition, has already lapsed, nothing survives in this writpetition to be adjudicated upon further. 3. Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for thepetitioner is not disputing the above stated facts andcircumstances and thus, submitted that the writ petition maybe disposed of as infructuous. 4. In view of the fact that the impugned award hasalready lapsed as per the above guideline 13(iv) and byconsidering the above stated facts and circumstances and thesubmissions made by both parties, this writ petition isdisposed of as infructuous. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// sni To 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – III (1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600034. 2. Income Tax Ombudsman (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, 6[th] Floor, Kannammai Building, 611, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600006. +1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate SR.86637 W.P.No.749 of 2012 PVS(CO)CB(25/11/2019)