N.jegatheesan v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Buildings, Madurai – 625 002

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED :20.08.2015CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAHW.P(MD).No.12666 of 2015 N.Jegatheesan ... Petitioner Vs.1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Buildings, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) – II, Income Tax Buildings, Madurai – 625 002. ...Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the firstrespondent to pass suitable orders on the basis of the petitioner'srepresentation, dated 13.07.2015 to the second respondent to take up theappeal filed by the petitioner on 22.04.2015 against the orders passedunder Section 143(3), dated 31.03.2015 of the DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Madurai in the case of N.Jegatheesan individual(PAN ADWPJ 3312K)A.Y.2012-2013 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, withinthe specified time fixed by this Honourable Court. For petitioner : Mr.H.Nazirudeen For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy The Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the first respondent to pass suitable orders on the basis ofthe petitioner's representation, dated 13.07.2015 to the secondrespondent to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner on 22.04.2015against the orders passed under Section 143(3), dated 31.03.2015 of theDCIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Madurai in the case of N.Jegatheesanindividual(PAN ADWPJ 3312K) A.Y.2012-2013 and to dispose of the same inaccordance with law, within a stipulated time. 2. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy learned counsel takes notice for therespondents. 3. By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up final disposal. 4.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is havingPermanent Account Number(PAN) ADWPJ 3312 K/2(1)/MDU with status“Individual”. The Petitioner filed return on income electronically on29.12.2012 and the same was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(1) ofthe Income Tax Act and was completed on 31.03.2015 determining the incomeat Rs.55,91,680/- by rejecting the claim of agricultural income ofRs.45,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- an account of repayment of loan. TheAssessing Officer erred in holding that the petitioner was not carryingany agricultural operations despite the affidavit filed by oneMr.Balaguru, who is the petitioner's lessor, with the particulars of allhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Government records stands in the name of the petitioner. Hence, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 22.04.2015 challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the meantime,a petition was filed before the Assessing Officer to grant stay of thecollection of the demand till the disposal of the appeal by the secondrespondent. The Assessing Officer instead of passing stay orderdirected the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount immediately by hisorder, dated 12.05.2015. Aggrieved against the order passed by theAssessing Officer, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Courtin W.P(MD)No.10171 of 2015 and got stay order on 23.06.2015 and the samewas further extended till 23.07.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner sent arepresentation to the second respondent on 29.06.2015 to dispose of theappeal filed by the petitioner. But the second respondent directed thepetitioner to approach the first respondent by way of an application fortaking the appeal on priority basis. Thereafter, the petitioner made arepresentation before the first respondent on 13.07.2015 to take up theappeal on priority basis. But the same was not considered so far.Hence, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for the abovestated relief. 5. When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel forthe petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to dispose of theappeal filed by the petitioner within a stipulated time. 6. But the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submittedthat that the appeal was filed only in the month of April 2015, hence,there is no need to give direction to dispose of the appeal by fixing thetime limit. 7. However, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice bygiving sufficient time, direction may be given to the second respondentto dispose of the appeal. Hence, without going into the merits of thematter, this Court directs the second respondent to dispose of the appealfiled by the petitioner dated 22.04.2015 on merits and in accordance withlaw by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within aperiod of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. NoCosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar pmTo1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Buildings, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) – II, Income Tax Buildings, Madurai – 625 002. +one cc to M/s.Babu Rajendran, Advocate in SR.No.48282/15+one cc to Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate in SR.No.48295/15 CSL/NGM-SS/10.09.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/2p/5c