Shri.mahalingam Karthikeyan v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.2339 of 2019andW.M.P.No.2582 of 2019 (Through Video Conferencing) Shri.Mahalingam Karthikeyan,Proprietor M/s. Sun Yarn,Son of Mr.Mahalingam, No.175/50, Kongu Main Road,Near Aachi Electronics,Thirupur - 641 607. ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), 121, Adams Building, First Floor, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur - 641 602. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, 121, Adams Building, 1st Floor, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur - 641 602. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records inPAN No.BDTPK1630B dated 31.12.2018 on the file of the firstrespondent relating to the Assessment Year 2013-2014, and quashthe same. For Respondents: Mr.A.N.R.JayaprathapJunior Standing Counsel The petitioner suffered an Assessment order for theAssessment Year 2013-14 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act on 31.03.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionerhad preferred an appeal before Appellate Commissioner. TheAppellate Commissioner partly allowed and partly disallowed theappeal by an order dated 25.11.2016. The petitioner wasassessed to an Income of Rs.3,88,36,080. The AppellateCommissioner by the aforesaid order confirmed the tax onRs.29,37,925 under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.For the balance amount of Rs.2,72,14,0485 and Rs.33,00,000/- bythe CIT (Appeals) relief was granted to the petitioner. 2.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Income TaxDepartment represented by the first respondent preferred anAppeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunalafter considering the submissions of either side set aside theorder dated 25.11.2016 of the CIT (Appeals) vide order dated09.06.2017 and remitted the case for de novo consideration bythe first respondent/Assessing Officer. 3.The order of CIT Appeal was set aside by the Tribunalwith the following observations: We have heard the rival submissions andgone through the CIT(A) order. It is clear that the CIT(A) has not given an opportunityto the AO under Rule 46A of the I.T Rules andhence, we set aside this case to the AO, whoshall after examining the relevant materialand after giving due opportunity to theassessee shall pass a speaking order on theabove issues. 4.It appears that after the Tribunal order came to bepassed series of communication were exchanged between thepetitioner and the 1[st] respondent. The allegations have alsobeen levelled by the petitioner against the officer who washolding the office of the first respondent. The petitioner alsoappears to have given compliant before the 2[nd] respondent JointCommissioner of IT department and also chief justice of thisCourt. In the process, the time for completing the Assessmentby 31.12.2018 would have lapsed. Under these circumstances, thefirst respondent has passed the orders on 31.12.2018 based onthe available records. 5.The manner in which the communications were exchangedbetween the petitioner and the incumbent of the first respondentindicates that the first respondent was heckled and was forcedto pass an order in a hurry. Perhaps it would have beenprovident for the first respondent to have been referred thecase to an officer higher in the hierarchy for completing theassessment. Although, the conduct of the petitioner cannot becondoned, nevertheless the impugned order appears to be passed in a hurry to avoid the lapsing of assessment on account of thetime. 5.The manner in which the communications were exchangedbetween the petitioner and the incumbent of the first respondentindicates that the first respondent was heckled and was forcedto pass an order in a hurry. Perhaps it would have beenprovident for the first respondent to have been referred thecase to an officer higher in the hierarchy for completing theassessment. Although, the conduct of the petitioner cannot becondoned, nevertheless the impugned order appears to be passed in a hurry to avoid the lapsing of assessment on account of thetime. 6.Considering the same, I am inclined to quash the impugnedorder and remit the case back to the respondent. The petitionermay file, reply/additional representation if any within a periodof thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this orderbefore the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner is directed tocooperate with the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent is directedto pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with lawwithin a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. 7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of withthe above observations. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jasTo1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), 121, Adams Building, First Floor, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur - 641 602. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, 121, Adams Building, 1st Floor, 60 Feet Road, Tirupur - 641 602. +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.65938+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.66545 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/