S.elambharathi v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – 2, Chennai, Iii Floor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.No.9930 of 2019and W.M.P.No.10512 of 2019 S.Elambharathi ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 2, Chennai, III Floor, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Investigation Wing, Room No.111, I Floor, No.46/108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Room No.303, No.46/108, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records in ITA.No.154 to 156/18-19/CIT(A)/18-19 dated27.03.2019 on the file of the 3[rd] respondent relating to theassessment year 2015-16 to 2017-18, quash the same and directthe respondents not to take any coercive steps till the disposalof the appeal pending before the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Om Prakash, Sr.Counsel for Ms.K.Sunitha For Respondents : Mr.A.N.R.Jayapratap, Jr. Standing Counsel (IT) ORDER Mr.E.Om Prakash, learned Senior Advocate instructed by thecounselonrecordforthewritpetitionerandMr.A.N.R.Jayapratap, learned Junior Standing Counsel for IncomeTax (Revenue Counsel) on behalf of all the three respondents arebefore this virtual Court. 2.Learned Senior counsel submits that the writ petitionerhas preferred three statutory appeals (statutory appeals underSection 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredas 'IT Act' for the sake of brevity) being ITA.No.154 to 156/18-19/CIT(A)/18-19 pertaining to three assessment years viz., 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. 3.In the light of the trajectory which the matter has takentoday and owing to the order I propose to make, it is notnecessary to delve into facts much less dilate qua facts withdetails. 4.Suffice to say that the writ petitioner has assailed theassessment orders qua aforementioned three assessment years moreparticularly (not limited to) regarding additions. 5.Pending statutory appeals before the Statutory AppellateAuthority (To be noted, the third respondent in the captionedwrit petition is the Statutory Appellate Authority), the writpetitioner moved a stay petition qua collection of disputeddemand and the stay petition came to be disposed of by the thirdrespondent by way of an order dated 27.03.2019. A scannedreproduction of the said order is as follows: 6.Assailing the aforementioned 27.03.2019 order of the thirdrespondent (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order' for thesake of convenience and clarity), captioned writ petition wasfiled on 01.04.2019. When the matter came up before Hon'blePredecessor Judge on 02.04.2019, an interim order inW.M.P.No.10512 of 2019 was made and the same reads as follows: 'Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior standingcounsel takes notice for the respondents andseeks three (3) weeks time to obtaininstructions and to file a counter. Let thecounter be filed on or before 25.04.2019, withthe copies served on the other side. 2.Heard, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Seniorcounsel for Ms.K.Sunitha, learned counsel forthe petitioner. 3.The order of assessment passed in thecase of the petitioner dated 30.12.2018 refersto search in the case of third parties on08.12.2016 and parallel search action in thecase of the petitioner on the same date.However, a perusal of the order of assessmentreveals that the seizures effected are onlyfrom the third party premises and nothingincriminating has been seized from thepetitioner's premises. While this is so, in thelast paragraph at page 1 of the impugned order, 2.Heard, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Seniorcounsel for Ms.K.Sunitha, learned counsel forthe petitioner. 3.The order of assessment passed in thecase of the petitioner dated 30.12.2018 refersto search in the case of third parties on08.12.2016 and parallel search action in thecase of the petitioner on the same date.However, a perusal of the order of assessmentreveals that the seizures effected are onlyfrom the third party premises and nothingincriminating has been seized from thepetitioner's premises. While this is so, in thelast paragraph at page 1 of the impugned order, the officer states that no prima facie case ismade out since the additions have been made'based on evidences seized from your premises'.This is factually incorrect. In the aforesaidcircumstances, there shall be an Interim stayof recovery as prayed for.' 7.There is no disputation or disagreement that theaforementioned interim order is now operating. 8.The aforementioned statutory appeals are of the year 2019and the aforementioned interim order has been operating for morethan 2 ½ years now. This Court is also informed that thestatutory appeals are ripe for final disposal and the thirdrespondent will be able to dispose of the main statutory appealswithin four weeks from today. Learned Senior Counsel for writpetitioner, on instructions, submits that the writ petitionerwill cooperate with the Appellate Authority in this exercise andensure expeditious disposal of the main statutory appeals. 9.Therefore, instead of going into the correctness orotherwise of the impugned order, it would serve the interest ofall concerned i.e, the assessee as well as the Revenue(uncertainty qua assessee will come to an end and the interestof the Revenue will also be protected) the thirdrespondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take up the mainstatutory appeals in ITA.No.154 to 156/18-19/CIT(A)/18-19 anddispose of the same on their own merits and in accordance withlaw as expeditiously as possible or in other words asexpeditiously as his official business would permit but in anyevent within four weeks from today i.e., on or before28.10.2021. Till disposal of the statutory appeals, theaforementioned interim order dated 02.09.2021 made by HonourablePredecessor Judge will continue to operate. If the outcome ofthe statutory appeals is adverse to the writ petitioner, theinterim order will continue to operate for another fortnightfrom the date of disposal of the statutory appeals. 10.Captioned writ petition is disposed of with the abovedirective. Consequently, WMP is disposed of on same line. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmiTo 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 2, Chennai, III Floor, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. Central – 2, Chennai, III Floor, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Investigation Wing, Room No.111, I Floor, No.46/108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. Central Circle – 2(4), Investigation Wing, Room No.111, I Floor, No.46/108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, Room No.303, No.46/108, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034. Room No.303, No.46/108, M.G.Road, Chennai – 600 034. +3ccs to M/.K.Sunitha, Advocate, S.R.No.51001+1cc to M/s.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.51623 W.P.No.9930 of 2019 SJ[co]NSK 08/10/2021