Shri Ramasamy Naidu Srinivasan [ Petitioner ] v. The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :22.12.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER Writ Petition Nos.43982 and 43983 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.37799 to 37802 of 2016 Shri Ramasamy Naidu Srinivasan [ Petitioner ]NO.15, 4th Street Co-operative Colony Mettupalayam- 641 301Petitioner in both Wps Vs The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 3(1) NO.63 Race Course Road CoimbatoreRespondent in both Wps Writ petition No.43982 of 2016 has been filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ ofcertiorari calling for the records of the Respondent in Noticedated 30.3.2016 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act1961 bearing PAN.CEFPS50550C and the consequential Orders dated25.11.2016 passed by the Respondent bearing No. CEFPS0550C/ NonCorp Ward 3(1)/ 2016-17 for AY 2009-10 and quash the same. Writ petition No.43983 of 2016 has been filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ ofcertiorari calling for the records of the Respondent in Noticeof the Respondent dated 17.6.2016 issued under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act 1961 bearing PAN.CEFPS50550C and theconsequential Orders dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Respondentbearing No. CEFPS0550C/ Non Corp Ward 3(1)/ 2016-17 for AY 2012-13 and quash the same For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.RishikeshFor Respondent : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, SSC COMMON ORDER 1. Issue notice. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned SeniorStanding Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Revenue. 2. With the consent of counsel for parties, the WritPetitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. The petitioner, has, by virtue of these petitions,challenged two (2) orders of even date, i.e., 25.11.2016,whereby, he has been directed to show cause, as to why a sum ofRs.2,56,00,000/- and Rs.10,50,000/- respectively, should not betreated as income in the nature of trade. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that thepetitioner's assessment for the year 2009-10 and 2012-13respectively have been opened, only on the ground that he hasalleged to be a benami of, one, Shri.D.Ramgopal. 4.2 It is the submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that insofar as Shri.D.Ramgopal is concerned, he hasbeen assessed to tax and against the assessment orders passed,appeals have been preferred to the Commissioner, Income Tax(Appeals), which are pending adjudication. 4.3 It is therefore the submission of the learned counselfor the petitioner that Shri.D.Ramgopal, in his appeals, havenot contended that, the income alleged to be earned upon sale ofthe said immovable properties, should be assessed in thepetitioner's hands. In order to buttress the submission,learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to thegrounds of appeals preferred by Shri.D.Ramgopal and the ordersdated 09.08.2016, whereby, reasons were given by the revenue tore-visit the petitioner's assessments. 5. Mr.Chopda, who appears for the Revenue says that thepetitioner's assessments for the years 2009-10 and 2012-13 havebeen re-opened on a protective basis, to avert a difficultsituation, which could arise, if at some stage, Shri.D.Ramgopalwere to take the stand that the subject income/capital gainsshould be assessed in the hands of the petitioner. In otherwords, learned counsel says that protective assessment in thehands of the petitioner is made, so that, the Revenue is notleft without a remedy. Mr.Chopta says that clearly, there willbe no tax liabiliy vis-a-vis, the petitioner, in case, such astand is not taken by Shri.D.Ramgopal. 6. In these circumstances, I am of the view, at this stage,no interference is called for. 7. Accordingly, the Writ petitions are disposed of based onthe stand before me, by Mr.Chopda, on behalf of the Revenue. 8. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions standclosed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar 6. In these circumstances, I am of the view, at this stage,no interference is called for. 7. Accordingly, the Writ petitions are disposed of based onthe stand before me, by Mr.Chopda, on behalf of the Revenue. 8. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions standclosed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarrgTo The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 3(1) NO.63 Race Course Road Coimbatore+2cc to Mr.P.J. Rishikesh, Advocate, S.R.No.74919,74920+1cc to Mr.T. Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate, S.R.No.74769rsy(CO)md(05/01/2017)W.P.Nos.43982 and 43983 of 2016