Shri.lakshmanan Magendiran v. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-I(1), Income Tax Office,Tirupur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER W.P.No.958 of 2017and WMP No.956 of 2017 Shri.Lakshmanan Magendiran,Prop : TVL. ABE TEX.,No.144/A, R.K.Complex,College Road, Near Ayyappan Temple,Tirupur-641 602.... Petitioner vs. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-I(1), Income Tax Office,Tirupur. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records on the files of therespondent in PAN/GIR No. , dated 21.11.2016 for theassessment year 2014-15 and quash the same as being withoutjurisdiction and authority of law and contrary to the principlesof natural justice and issue such further writ, order ordirection, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senniappan For Respondent : Mr.T.Parmod Kumar Chopda 1. Issue notice. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, accepts notice,on behalf of the Revenue. 1.1. With the consent of the learned counsels for theparties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing anddisposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This writ petition is directed against the assessmentorder dated 21.11.2016, passed under Section 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the 1961 Act"). 2.1. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner's totalincome has been pegged at Rs.21,64,740/-. 3. The petitioner, on the other hand, qua the AssessmentYear (AY) in issue, (i.e., AY 2014-15), had returned totalincome of Rs.9,56,650/-. 4. The Revenue, apparently, on cross verification of theinformation available with it, and that, which was reflected inthe tax audit report, came to the conclusion that the petitionerhad not disclosed the amount standing to its credit in theaccounts maintained with the Indusind Bank, for the AY in issue. 4.1. Accordingly, summons under Section 131(1) of the 1961Act, were issued to the Indusind Bank, Tiruppur Branch, which,revealed that the petitioner maintained an account in therelevant financial year, i.e., 2013-14, and that, in the saidyear, he had a sum of Rs.12,08,090/- standing to his credit. 4.2. Based on the receipt of the aforesaid information, thesaid sum was added as unexplained income, by taking recourse toprovision under Section 115 BBE of the 1961 Act. 4.3. This is how, via, the impugned order, the Revenue, hasdetermined the taxable income of the petitioner and pegged it atRs.21,64,740/-, as against the amount reflected in the returnfiled by the petitioner. 4.4. It is the petitioner's case that no opportunity wasgiven to him, to explain, as to how the amount stood to hiscredit, in the Indusind Bank account maintained by him, with theTiruppur Branch. 5. Mr.Chopda, states that the opportunities were given tothe petitioner and since, no explanation came forth, theimpugned assessment order was passed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that theAssessing Officer, without indicating in the order, the dates,on which, explanations were sought from the petitioner, hasproceeded to note that because no satisfactory explanation wasreceived, the said amount was added to the taxable income of thepetitioner. 7.1. As a matter of fact, in the opening sheet of theassessment order, against column, "Date(s) of hearing", the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assessing Officer records : "various dates as per the assessmentrecords". 7.2. Quite clearly, the impugned order is silent, asindicated above, with regard to the date, on which, notice wasissued to the petitioner and explanation was sought from him,with regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7.1. As a matter of fact, in the opening sheet of theassessment order, against column, "Date(s) of hearing", the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assessing Officer records : "various dates as per the assessmentrecords". 7.2. Quite clearly, the impugned order is silent, asindicated above, with regard to the date, on which, notice wasissued to the petitioner and explanation was sought from him,with regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with thesubmission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that dueopportunity was not given to explain the circumstances, inwhich, the aforementioned amount was found standing to hiscredit in the account maintained with Indusind Bank. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 9.1. Needless to say that the respondent will be at libertyto pass a fresh assessment order, after affording dueopportunity to the petitioner, albeit, in accordance with law. 9.2. For this purpose, the petitioner will appear before theAssessing Officer/respondent on 07.02.2017 at 11.00 a.m. Incase, the said date is not convenient, the AssessingOfficer/respondent, will fix a fresh date, which will beproximate to the date fixed by the Court. 9.3. As indicated above, a fresh order will be passed onlyafter giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 10. The captioned writ petition is disposed of with theaforesaid direction. Resultantly, the pending application isclosed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar gg To The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(1), Income Tax Office, Tirupur. +1cc to Mr.Senniappan, Advocate, S.R.No.3222 UG(CO)RS(27/01/2017)