M/S.sri Lakshmi Hotels Private Limited v. The Tax Recovery Officer-1, O/O.income Tax Recovery Office, Range-2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.12887 of 2017andW.M.P.(MD)No.9977 of 2017 M/s.Sri Lakshmi Hotels Private Limited,Represented by its Managing Director,V.S.Palanivel, Having Office at No.3A, Alexandria Road,Cantonment,Trichy-1. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Tax Recovery Officer-1, O/o.Income Tax Recovery Office, Range-2, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-1. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.44. Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-1. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the demand noticein C.No.11/2017-18/AAACS8818B, dated 12.06.2017, on the file ofthe first respondent and quash as arbitrary and illegal and directthe respondents not to demand any amount from the petitioner onthe basis of the said demand notice. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Illanchezian for Mr.G.T.Subramaniam For Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ : Mr.N.Dilipkumar O R D E R Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel takes notice for therespondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for finaldisposal. 2.The petitioner has come to this Court against the impugnedIncome Tax Certified Proceedings-1, dated 12.06.2017, issued bythe first respondent on the basis of a Certificate, dated18.05.2017, forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Tiruchirappalli, for recovery of a sum ofRs.2,10,37,021/- from the petitioner, on the ground that theimpugned demand notice is contrary to law. Moreover, the impugnedorder is not supported with any proper documentary evidence. 3.But, the petitioner has not concealed any materialinformation. It is not a case where the escaped turnover wasfound by the Assessing Officer in his Best judgment. But, it is acase of voluntary disclosure by the assessee in his return. Thedemand of the first respondent to the tune of Rs.2,10,37,021/- iswholly unsustainable, for the reason that the demand of the saidamount is not final, because the appeal challenging the assessmentis pending before the appellate authority, in Appeal No.ITA64/16-17 of 2016. At least, till the disposal of the appeal, it ispleaded, the impugned order should be kept in abeyance. 4.However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the presentWrit Petition. The reason is, once the petitioner has firmlyadmitted before this Court that as against the original orderdirecting them to pay the aforementioned amount, the appeal filedby them has been withdrawn, no purpose would be served byentertaining the present Writ Petition. Since the further appealfiled by the petitioner as against the order of penalty, is seizedof by the second respondent, it is for the petitioner to work outtheir remedy by approaching the second respondent alone and notbefore this Court. 5.With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed.No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar 3 To1. The Tax Recovery Officer-1, O/o.Income Tax Recovery Office, Range-2, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-1.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), No.44. Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-1. +1 cc to Mr.G.T.Subramaniam , Advocate in SR.No. 64868+1 cc to Mr.N.Dilip kumar , Advocate in SR.No. 64902 smn2AE/SKN RSK/SAR1/03.08.2017/3P/5C