N.karuppusamy v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Karur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEW.P.(MD)No.3372 of 2020 andW.M.P.(MD).No.2836 of 2020 N.Karuppusamy Vs ... Petitioner 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Karur, No.16A, Chinandan Koil Road, Karur-639 001. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Trichy, O/o. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Trichy, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-620 001. 3.The Tax Recovery Officer, TRO-I, Trichy, Income Tax Office Annexe Building, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-626001.... Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for therecords pertaining to demand notice dated 29.12.2015 havingreference No.7/2015-16/BEDOJOO30G and all consequential orders ofattachment of immovable property dated 10.12.2019, 17.12.2019,04.02.2020 and notice under Section 226 (3) dated 13.02.2020 issuedby the third respondent and quash the same as non-est and illegaland further direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal,which is filed by the petitioner, within a time frame fixed by thisCourt. ORDER (This Petition was heard through the Video Conferencing) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the demandnotice dated 29.12.2015 and the consequential orders of attachmentof immovable property dated 10.12.2019, 17.12.2019, 04.02.2020 andnotice under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated13.02.2020 issued by the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Heard Mr.Ravi Kannan, learned counsel for the petitionerand Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for therespondents. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, dated20.07.2018, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal underSection 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, 'D” Bench, Chennai. By an order, dated02.07.2019, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after quashing theorder of the second respondent remanded the matter back to thesecond respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he hadearlier challenged the assessment order passed by the firstrespondent before this Court by filing W.P.(MD).No.15881 of 2015 onthe ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It isfurther submitted by the petitioner that by an order, dated05.03.2019, passed in W.P.(MD).No.15881 of 2015, this Court disposedof the Writ Petition as infructuous, after recording the submissionsof learned counsel for the petitioner, but, however, granted stay ofrecovery of the demand made by the respondents only for a limitedperiod of two weeks from 05.03.2019. When the order dated05.03.2019 was passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.15881 of 2015,the petitioner had preferred the statutory appeal before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Chennai. Thereafter, by an order, dated02.07.2019, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashed the order ofthe second respondent and remanded the matter back to the secondrespondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that when thestatutory appeal is pending before the second respondent, therespondents cannot demand the tax amount when it is under challengebefore the second respondent. It is also the case of thepetitioner that no further steps can be taken by the respondents forthe sale of immovable property, which has already been attached. Insuch circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that when thestatutory appeal is pending before the second respondent, therespondents cannot demand the tax amount when it is under challengebefore the second respondent. It is also the case of thepetitioner that no further steps can be taken by the respondents forthe sale of immovable property, which has already been attached. Insuch circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had the benefit of stay whilein the earlier round of litigation with the second respondent whenthe statutory appeal filed by him was pending before him.Thereafter, the statutory appeal was dismissed by the secondrespondent and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has alsopreferred a statutory second appeal before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has quashedthe order of the second respondent and remanded the matter back tothe second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and inaccordance with law. While that be so, when the petitioner had thebenefit of interim stay while statutory appeal filed by him earlierunder Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was pending with thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ second respondent, the petitioner should also be entitled for asimilar stay, when the matter has been remanded back to the secondrespondent pursuant to the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai. It has to be restricted only till the disposalof the statutory appeal by the second respondent within a time frameto be fixed by this Court. 7. In fact, in this Writ Petition, even though thepetitioner has challenged the order of attachment and theconsequential demand notice issued by the third respondent, the mainrelief that the petitioner seeks is for the disposal of thestatutory appeal filed by him with the second respondent within atime frame to be fixed by this Court. After giving dueconsideration to the aforementioned factors, this Court directs thesecond respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal pursuant to theorder dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,'D' Branch, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be anorder of interim stay of the demand of recovery, however, theattachment effected over the petitioner's property shall continue. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-II) Tsg / /2020Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized forofficial purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of theorder that is presented is the correct copy, shall bethe responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Karur, No.16A, Chinandan Koil Road, Karur-639 001.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Trichy, O/o. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Trichy, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tiruchirapalli-620 001. 3.The Tax Recovery Officer, TRO-I, Trichy, Income Tax Office Annexe Building, No.44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli-626001.+1 CC to Mr.N.DILIP KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-24749[F] dated09/12/2020 ) W.P.(MD)No.3372 of 202008.12.2020 VB (18.12.2020) 4P 5C