R.selvam v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 1 (1), Income Tax Office
High Court
04 Aug 2020 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
R.selvam v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 1 (1), Income Tax Office
Date of order
04 Aug 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In R.selvam v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 1 (1), Income Tax Office, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
R.SELVAM, Prop Sri Venkateswarra Company,No.15, New Kandhappa Colony,Annadanapatty, Salem 636 002... Petitioner Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 1 (1), Income Tax Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 002... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issunace of a Writ ofCertiorari to call for the records on the file of therespondent in PAN. and quash the impugned order No.ITBA/ AST/ S/ 143(3)/ 2019-20/ 1021838218 (1) dated 6.12.2019passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by therespondent as illegal.
Heard Mr.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner andMr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for therespondent.
2. The petitioner challenges an order of assessmentpassed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (inshort ‘Act’) dated 06.12.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner hasavailed of appellate remedy and the appeal is pending beforethe first Appellate Authority.
3. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition isnot maintainable and the same is closed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that ahttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/substantial demand has been raised consequent upon the
assessment and the assessee is not in a position to remit thesame, seeing as the returned income was much lower than theassessed income. He also points out that the Stay Applicationfiled by the petitioner before the Assessing Authority hasbeen rejected in a mechanical manner calling upon thepetitioner to remit 20% of the disputed demand. This orderdated 10.02.2020 is however not the subject matter ofchallenge before me.
5. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach theAppellate/Administrative Commissioner seeking stay of thedemand and such application, if and when filed, will bedisposed by the Authority before which it is filed, afterhearing the petitioner, in accordance with law.
6. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are alsodismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
SlToThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 1 (1), Income Tax Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 002.
W.P. No.6081 of 2020and
WMP. Nos.7146 & 7147 of 2020
A.SK(01/10/2020)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.