Old Mahabalipuram Road, Seevaram Village, Perungudi, Chennai v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle V(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS DATED: 19.07.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.3033 of 2010and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s.Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd.,Rep. by its Managing Director,Sri N.Ramanathan,ESVIN House, 13, Old Mahabalipuram Road,Seevaram Village, Perungudi,Chennai - 600096. ...PetitionerVs 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai III, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034. 4. Income Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V(2), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034....Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying to issue a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records in C.No.3033/6/III/2006-07dated 27.01.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash thesame and directing the 2nd respondent to admit and allow therevision petition u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act in respect ofassessment year 2003-04. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muthukumar For Respondents: Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel for IT Dept. O R D E R The impugned order has been passed rejecting thepetitioner's application that it is not maintainable, in view ofthe expression of Section 264(4)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whichprohibits the Commissioner from revising any order, where theorder has been made the subject matter of appeal to theAppellate Tribunal. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the issue forwhich the revision is sought for under Section 264 is not asubject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) for the assessment year 2003-04 and therefore, on adifferent point, the same could be maintained. 3. I am not in acceptance with such a submission made. Asobserved by the Assessing Officer, irrespective of whether thepoint in revision had been considered by the Assessing Officeror not, so long as the assessee has filed an appeal before theAppellate Authority against the Assessing Officer's order, thesame cannot form subject matter of revisionary proceedings underSection 264. This point has been sustained in various decisionsincluding a decision of Division Bench of this Court in 1998(100) Taxman 393 (Mad.) in the case of Reiter Machine Works Ltd.vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. It is also not in dispute thatthe issue is now pending in W.P.No.4542 of 2018 before thisCourt for the assessment year 2003-04. As such, I do not findany infirmity in the impugned order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.hvk Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(1), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034.2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai III, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034.3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034. 4. Income Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V(2), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034. +1cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate, SR.No.62633/19+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.62092 W.P.No.3033 of 2010andM.P.No.1 of 2010 Kak(12/09/2019)