Sir M.ct.m. Centenary School Society,Registered As v. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 2, Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 09.08.2021CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMWP No.34290 of 2018andWMP Nos.39860 & 39863 of 2018 Sir M.Ct.M. Centenary School Society,Registered as No.283 of 1992,Rep. By its Secretary,Mrs.Nandhini Valli Muthiah,No.63, Ormes Road,Kilpauk,Chennai – 600 010. .. Petitioner Vs 1. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 2, Room No.720, Wanaparthy Block, 7[th] Floor, No.121, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. Mrs.Arti Meenakshi Muthiah 4. Mr.Tarun Ghai 5. Ms.Supriya Ananth Reddy 6. Sir. M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Higher Secondary School Trust, Rep. By its President, and having office at No.23, Raja Annamalai Road, Pursawalkam, Chennai – 600 084. .. Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus,Prohibiting the Respondents No. 1 from assessing the income ofthe Shri M Ct Muthiah Memorial Matriculation Higher SecondarySchool run by the Petitioner-Society in the hands of 6threspondent Trust. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is toprohibit the 1st respondent from assessing the income of ShriM.Ct. Muthiah Memorial Matriculation Hr. Sec. School, run by thepetitioner society in the hands of 6th respondent Trust. 2. The petitioner states that petitioner-society has beenallotted by the Income Tax Department PAN No. andstill valid in the records of the department. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memostating that the Secretary of the petitioner-society and the 3rdrespondent are sisters. The 4th respondent is the husband ofthe 3rd respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, passedan order on 08.10.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3198 of 2020appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph (Retired SupremeCourt Judge) as Mediator and he is mediating all the issuesbetween the above parties. The memo further states that theparties are in the process of reaching a settlement on variousissues, which includes the issue between the petitioner-society,the 6th respondent Trust and the respondents 3 and 4. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner states that if at all anorder is passed in the writ petition, the same will have abearing on the mediation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submissionthat in view of the fact that the mediation is in progress, thewrit petition is to be kept pending and after the completion ofmediation, the relief sought for in the writ petition, is to beconsidered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submissionthat in view of the fact that the mediation is in progress, thewrit petition is to be kept pending and after the completion ofmediation, the relief sought for in the writ petition, is to beconsidered. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents 1 and 2, objected the said contention raised onbehalf of the petitioner by stating that the prayer in the writpetition itself is not maintainable. The negative prayer assuch sought for cannot be granted, as the assessments are to becompleted by the competent authorities of the Income Taxdepartment strictly adhering to the period of limitationcontemplated under various provisions of the Income Tax Act. Itis further contended that the Income Tax department is no wayconnected with the family dispute of the petitioner as well asthe other contesting respondents and the settlement of issuesbetween the family members and the school are unconnected withthe Income Tax department. Income Tax department is proceedingon the PAN available and the assessments are to be made byadhering the period of limitation, with reference to the PANconcerned. Even in case the disputes are continuing for alonger period, the petitioner may come forward and say that thelimitation contemplated under the Act expired and under suchcircumstances, department may not be in a position to collectthe tax arrears. Thus, the powers conferred under the Act mustbe allowed to be exercised by the competent authorities in themanner prescribed and therefore, the relief as such sought forcannot be granted. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that as rightlypointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing onbehalf of the Income Tax department that a writ of prohibitionto prohibit the Income Tax Officer from assessing the incomecannot be granted in a routine manner. In exceptionalcircumstances, the Court has to consider the mitigating factors.However, in the present case admittedly the dispute is betweenthe petitioner and respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6. The disputebetween the private parties are no way connected with theassessment to be made by the Income Tax department by followingthe procedures contemplated under the Income tax Act. 7. As rightly pointed out by the respondents/Income TaxDepartment that assessment orders have to be passed strictlywithin the period of limitation contemplated under the Act, forinitiation of actions under the Income Tax Act, time limits areprescribed. If the time limit expires, then it may not bepossible for the Income Tax Department to pursue the matterwhich would result in loss of revenue. 8. Admittedly, a retired Supreme Court Judge in the presentcase was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India tomediate the issues between the parties. Income Tax departmentis not a party to the mediation. Further, the duration ofmediation and its completion, also cannot be ascertained by thisCourt. Thus, it would not be in the interest of justice 7. As rightly pointed out by the respondents/Income TaxDepartment that assessment orders have to be passed strictlywithin the period of limitation contemplated under the Act, forinitiation of actions under the Income Tax Act, time limits areprescribed. If the time limit expires, then it may not bepossible for the Income Tax Department to pursue the matterwhich would result in loss of revenue. 8. Admittedly, a retired Supreme Court Judge in the presentcase was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India tomediate the issues between the parties. Income Tax departmentis not a party to the mediation. Further, the duration ofmediation and its completion, also cannot be ascertained by thisCourt. Thus, it would not be in the interest of justice prohibiting the authorities from assessing the income of any ofthe parties in the present writ petition. The Income Taxdepartment is bound to assess based on the PAN available and byfollowing the procedures as contemplated. A blanket prohibitionas such sought for in the present writ petition, cannot begranted and furthermore, the submission of the petitioner thattill the disputes are settled, the writ petition has to be keptpending also deserves no consideration. When the relief soughtfor is to prohibit the authorities from performing their lawfulduties under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, this Court isnot inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in thepresent writ petition and therefore, the Income Tax Departmentis at liberty to proceed based on the PAN in accordance with lawby following the procedures as contemplated under the Income TaxAct.9. With the above observations, the writ petition standsdismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected WritMiscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arsTo1. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 2, Room No.720, Wanaparthy Block,7[th] Floor, No.121, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.39164 SMI(CO)SU(01/09/2021) WP No.34290 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/