Sharad Kumar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 20 (1)Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Sharad Kumar...Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 20 (1)Room No.311, 3rd Floor,Wanaparthy Block,121 MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai - 600 034. ...Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for records of the respondent contained in its assessmentorder, dated 24.03.2016, passed under Section 16 (3) read withSection 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in PAN , forthe assessment year 2008-09, and to quash the same along withall consequent notices of demand, as arbitrary, unjust andconsequently, to restrain the respondent or any of itssubordinates, agents or any other person claiming under therespondent from reassessing the petitioner's wealth tax for theassessment year 2008-09 under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act,1957. Heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr.Swaminathan, learned SeniorStanding Counsel, assisted by Ms.Pushpa, learned counsel forrespondent/Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.This is a classical case, where, the petitioner/assessee has been put to prejudice, on account of total nonapplication of mind and oversight, on the part of the AssessingOfficer. 3. The petitioner was assessed to wealth tax for theassessment year 2008-2009, and an order to the said effect waspassed on 20.01.2014. Challenging the said order, thepetitioner has filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) VI, Chennai, on 14.02.2014. It is not in disputethat the Appeal is still pending. Whileso, a notice wasreceived by the petitioner on 31.03.2015, stating that theAssessing Officer has reason to believe that the wealth, inrespect of which, the petitioner was assessed to tax for theassessment year 2008-09, has escaped the assessment within themeaning of Section 17 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter,referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the Assessing Officerproposed to re-assess the wealth tax for the said assessmentyear, and called upon the petitioner to deliver returns in theprescribed form of his wealth, in respect of which, thepetitioner is assessable for the said assessment year. Thepetitioner submitted a representation on 17.04.2015, requestingto treat the returns filed on 26.04.2013, as returns in responseto the notice issued under Section 17(2) of the Act, and to givereasons for re-opening of wealth tax as on 31.03.2008, as perSection 17 of the Act. In response thereto, the AssessingOfficer, by reply, dated 26.08.2015, submitted reasons. Onreceipt of reasons, the petitioner came to know that apart fromtwo properties, viz., Farm House at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh andother property at Chembarambakkam, two other properties wereincluded, stating that, they are also falling within the holdingof the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objection on08.09.2015. He also produced proof to show that one of theproperties, which was mentioned, in the communication, dated26.08.2015 belongs to his mother, and she had acquired by a saledeed, dated 05.06.1985. In respect of the property at NawabHabibullah Avenue, the petitioner stated that it is aresidential property outside the purview of levy of wealth tax. 4. Thus, what was required to be done by the AssessingOfficer is to consider the objection of the petitioner, andafter affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, shouldhave proceeded with the matter, if at all, there were good andsufficient reasons for re-opening the assessment. Curiouslyenough, the impugned order of assessment does not refer to theproperties, which were cited as reasons for reopening theassessment, in the communication, dated 26.08.2015, but theother two properties, viz, the Farm House at Eluru and the landat Chembarambakkam, which were already assessed to wealth tax, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were once again assessed, that too, for 96 months. This couldnot have been done by the Assessing Officer. 5.In the light of the above facts, it is clear that theAppeal filed by the petitioner as against the order ofassessment, dated 20.01.2014, is still pending. Thus, theimpugned order is outcome of the total non application of mindand patently illegal. 6.For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition isallowed and the impugned order stands quashed. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sd ToThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle 20 (1)Room No.311, 3rd Floor,Wanaparthy Block,121 MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai - 600 034. 1 cc to M/s.Arun Karthik Mohan, Advocate, sr.29737 ug cokra 15.06.2016 Writ Petition No.13509 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/