Pachayappan v. The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1),Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.24130 of 2021andW.M.P.No.25438 of 2021 (Through Video Conferencing) Pachayappan,S/o.Ramanujam ... Petitioner Vs The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1),Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 1,No.1, Chairman Subbrayar Street,West Shanmugapuram,Villupuram. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the recordsrelating to the impugned assessment order dated 28.09.2021 madein DIN No.ITBA/AST/M/147/2021-2022/1035987695(1) and quash the same. ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Orderdated 28.09.2021. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugnedAssessment Order has been passed without considering thedocuments furnished by the petitioner to substantiate that thepetitioner acted only as a middleman in the auctions conductedby the Banks in auctioning the tractors which were financed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Banks to various farmers who were defaulted. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced all thecertificates from individual buyers to the effect that thepetitioner only acted as a middleman and that there was no taxliability and that the petitioner was unaware of the taxliability under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It istherefore submitted that the impugned order has been passed bythe respondent by invoking Section 144 read with Section 69A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placedreliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Anuradha VsThe Income Tax Officer, Villupuram passed in W.P.No.22807 of2021 vide its order dated 25.10.2021. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that undersimilar circumstances the Court considered the plight of aWorker employed under the Mahatma Gandhi National RuralEmployment Scheme and granted relief by directing the respondentto reconsider the case and pass a appropriate order afterconsidering the evidence on record. The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that similar relief may be granted to thepetitioner in this case also. 6. Opposing the prayer in this writ petition, the learnedJunior Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that thepetitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. However, the petitioner failed to file thereturns despite the receipt of the aforesaid notice. It isfurther submitted that the petitioner also failed to file areply after the informations were called for and finallydischarge of the assessment, the petitioner responded. 7. Since no records and proper accounts were maintained,the respondent was justified in invoking Section 69A read withSection 144AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is furthersubmitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way ofan appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and therefore submittedthat the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. I haveperused the impugned orders passed by this Court in somewhatidentical case in W.P.No.22807 of 2021 which was cited by thelearned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The impugned order has not discussed the recordsfurnished by the petitioner to distance himself from the entire 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. I haveperused the impugned orders passed by this Court in somewhatidentical case in W.P.No.22807 of 2021 which was cited by thelearned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The impugned order has not discussed the recordsfurnished by the petitioner to distance himself from the entire liability. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order can beinterfered by remitting the case back to the respondent to passa proper assessment order. However, it is noticed that thepetitioner has himself offered to pay the tax under Section 44ADof the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the undiscussed income ofRs.22,42,300/-. 10. Considering the above, the impugned order is set asidesubject to the petitioner paying tax as per the computationunder Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a periodof six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.After the petitioner deposits the admitted tax under Section144AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent shall pass afresh assessment order on merits and in accordance with lawwithin a period of four weeks thereafter. 11. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aboveobservations. No costs. Consequently, connected WritMiscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// arb/nst Sub Assistant Registrar To The Income Tax Officer (Ward 1),Office of the Income Tax Officer Ward 1,No.1, Chairman Subbrayar Street,West Shanmugapuram,Villupuram. +1cc to M/s.D.R.Arun Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.65932+1cc to M/s.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.65481 RGN(CO)SU(04/01/2022)