Nirmala Bai v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Tds Cell, Range-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.10.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.19820 to 19826 of 2016 and connected WMPs Nirmala Bai .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19820 of 2016Naina A.Chowatia .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19821 of 2016Chandenben .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19822 of 2016Madanlal B.Chowatia .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19823 of 2016Aruna C.Chowatia .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19824 of 2016Ashok Kumar B.Chowatia .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19825 of 2016 Babulal.L.Shah .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19826 of 2016 vs. 1.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) TDS Cell, Range-1 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2.Lalitha Motors Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai. 3.Dilip Chhabria Designs Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.Kanchan Chaabria Mumbai. 4.Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle, Ward 5(2) Kannammai Building 611, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents in W.P.No.19820 to W.P.No.19826 of 2016 PRAYER in W.P.No.19820 to 19826 : Writ Petition filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for theissuance of a writ of mandamus, to reflect the amount which hasbeen deducted by the second respondent while paying rent andtreat the second respondent as defaulter and recover the duesfrom them under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 for theyears 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Heard Mr.T.V.Lakshmanan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners, Mr.S.Rajesh, learned counsel for Mr.J.Narayanasamy,learned counsel for the first and fourth respondent andMr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the secondrespondent. With the consent of the learned counsel appearingon either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2.In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek for adirection upon the first respondent to reflect the amount whichhave been deducted by the second respondent while paying therent and treat the second respondent as a defaulter and recoverthe dues from them under the provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961, for the relevant assessment years. 3.The specific case of the petitioners is that the tax onrent which was deducted by the second respondent, has not beenremitted to the Government's Account, as it does not reflect inthe official website pertaining to the petitioners assessments. 4.The matter was adjourned by this Court on five earlieroccasions, so that the first respondent can file counteraffidavits. At last, today, when the matter is heard, counteraffidavits have been filed by the first respondent sworn to byM.Murali Mohan, Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS Range-1,Chennai. 5.In the counter affidavits, the paragraphs which would berelevant for the purpose of deciding the case, is paragraph Nos.6 and 10. However, on a reading of paragraph No.6, this Courtfinds that the averments made in the counter affidavits areabsolutely vague. It says that the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, TDS Circle-2 conducted inspection on the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The matter was adjourned by this Court on five earlieroccasions, so that the first respondent can file counteraffidavits. At last, today, when the matter is heard, counteraffidavits have been filed by the first respondent sworn to byM.Murali Mohan, Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS Range-1,Chennai. 5.In the counter affidavits, the paragraphs which would berelevant for the purpose of deciding the case, is paragraph Nos.6 and 10. However, on a reading of paragraph No.6, this Courtfinds that the averments made in the counter affidavits areabsolutely vague. It says that the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, TDS Circle-2 conducted inspection on the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent with regard to Tax Deducted at Source, on 04.08.2016.Whether the inspection was an informal inspection or preceded byissuance of a statutory notice, is not clear and the fullparticulars which were gathered by the said AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax have also not been disclosed in thecounter affidavits. All that has been stated is, consequent tothe inspection, it revealed that the second respondent hasdeposited Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten lakhs only], on 09.08.2016as Tax deducted at source. The counter affidavits do not stateon what date the deduction was effected, whether the secondrespondent had remitted the same to the Government's Accountwithin the time as stipulated under the Act, etc. Further, inparagraph 6 of the counters, it has been stated as follows: "6.... It is submitted that the petitionershad earlier deposited TDS of Rs.3,96,900/- on28.09.2012 towards tax deducted on rent paid to thepetitioners." 6.The counter affidavits have been sworn to by the firstrespondent, without even noticing the mistake in his submissionsi.e., the word 'petitioners' should be read as 'secondrespondent' and the remittance of TDS is said to have been madeon 28.09.2012. Conveniently, the date on which the tax wasdeducted and the date within which it has to be remitted to theGovernment's Account have not been disclosed. Ultimately, avague submission has been made in paragraph No.10. Therefore,the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent standrejected. 7.In the light of the above fact, thorough enquiry into thematter is required to be done and the manner in which theAssistant Commissioner has proceeded with the matter, that too,after the Writ Petitions were filed, notices were ordered andthe cases were adjourned from time to time, do not inspireconfidence in the mind of the Court, that proper procedure hasbeen followed. 8.For the foregoing reasons, there will be a direction tothe first respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and tothe respondents 2 to 4 to produce all the records, make athorough verification and pass appropriate orders strictly inaccordance with law, as per the provisions of the Income TaxAct, 1961. The above direction shall be complied with by thefirst respondent, within a period of three weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order, making it clear that thepetitioners and the respondents 2 & 3 shall extend their fullco-operation in the enquiry to be conducted.the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioners and tothe respondents 2 to 4 to produce all the records, make athorough verification and pass appropriate orders strictly inaccordance with law, as per the provisions of the Income TaxAct, 1961. The above direction shall be complied with by thefirst respondent, within a period of three weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order, making it clear that thepetitioners and the respondents 2 & 3 shall extend their fullco-operation in the enquiry to be conducted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) TDS Cell, Range-1 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.Lalitha Motors Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.Kiran Kumar Jain, Chennai. 3.Dilip Chhabria Designs Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.Kanchan Chaabria Mumbai.4.Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Circle, Ward 5(2) Kannammai Building 611, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006.+1cc to Mr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate Sr.57252+1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate SR.57302+1cc to Mr.S.Rajesh, Advocate SR.57025 W.P.Nos. 19820 to 19826 of 2016 sr[co]srg 10/11/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/