Srs Mining v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle 2(4)

SRS Mining,Represented by its Partner,Mr.J.Sekar, Aged about 52 yearsNo.312, Elite Empire,G-12, Valluvarkottam High Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 ..Petitioner vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 2(4),No.46, M G Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for records pertaining to the impugned orderin C.No.ACLFS6523P/CC 2(4)/2019-20 dated 28.06.2019 issued bythe Respondent herein insofar as it forecloses the right ofcross examination by the petitioner and consequentially directthe Respondent to permit the petitioner to exercise the right ofcross examination, and pass such further or other orders as thisHon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel of M/s.Nithyaesh andVaibhav (Law Firm) on behalf of writ petitioner andMr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, learned Standing counsel on behalf of solerespondent are before this Court. 2. Owing to the trajectory which the hearing has takentoday, the entire writ petition now turns on a very narrow https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compass. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, mainwrit petition is taken up and is being disposed of. 3. Suffice to say that subject matter of the instant writpetition is a scrutiny assessment qua the writ petitioner forAssessment Years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018. In the course of theproceedings, writ petitioner sought permission to cross examinethree individuals namely Shri.K.Srinivasulu, Shri.S.Nagarathinamand Shri.S.Murugesan.4. It is the case of the respondent that the request forcross examination was acceded to with regard to two out of thethreeindividuals,namelyShri.S.NagarathinamandShri.S.Murugesan. 5. It is the further case of the Respondent that acommunication i.e., an office letter dated 03.06.2019 was sentto the writ petitioner, intimating the writ petitioner thatcross examination of the said two individuals can be done on07.06.2019 at 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, respondent has sent acommunicationdated28.06.2019bearingreferenceC.No.ACLFS6523P/CC 2(4)/2019-20, stating that the writpetitioner did not respond to the 03.06.2019 communication anddid not cross examine the two witnesses on 07.06.2019 andtherefore, the request of the writ petitioner for crossexamination is treated as exhausted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid'communicationdated28.06.2019bearingreferenceC.No.ACLFS6523P/CC 2(4)/2019-20' issued by the sole respondent,[hereinafter 'impugned communication' for brevity] instant writpetition has been filed. 6. Pivotal submission of learned counsel for writpetitioner is that the aforesaid communication dated 03.06.2019was never received by the writ petitioner and it was arevelation of sorts for the writ petitioner when the impugnedcommunication was received. 7. There is no material before this Court to demonstratethat communication dated 03.06.2019 was served on the writpetitioner. In any event, as the sole respondent has acceded tothe request for cross examination, this Court is of the viewthat no prejudice would be caused, if the writ petitioner isgiven an opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid twoindividuals on a specified date. 8. To be noted, as alluded to supra in the narrative thusfar, writ petitioner sought permission to cross examine threeindividuals, but permission was accorded to cross examine twoindividuals. On instructions, learned Revenue counsel submitsthat permission was accorded with regard to two individuals as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the other individual namely Shri.K.Srinivasulu has turnedhostile. 8. To be noted, as alluded to supra in the narrative thusfar, writ petitioner sought permission to cross examine threeindividuals, but permission was accorded to cross examine twoindividuals. On instructions, learned Revenue counsel submitsthat permission was accorded with regard to two individuals as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the other individual namely Shri.K.Srinivasulu has turnedhostile. 9. In the light of the narrative thus far, the followingorder is passed:a) The impugned communication dated 28.06.2019bearing reference 'C.No.ACLFS6523P/CC 2(4)/2019-20' isset aside. To be noted, impugned communication is setaside solely for facilitating the writ petitioner toget an opportunity to cross examine and it is not setaside on merits. In other words, this Court is notexpressing any view or opinion on merits of the matter. b) By consent of both sides, it is now agreed thatthe date, time and venue for cross examination ofaforesaid two individuals namely Shri.S.Nagarathinamand Shri.S.Murugesan shall be 01.08.2019 (Thursday), at12.00 Noon in the office of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Investigation Wing,Room No.111, 1[st] Floor, No.46, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai – 34. c) It is submitted on instructions that the writpetitioner's lawyer / Advocate shall cross examine theaforesaid two witnesses on the aforesaid date, time andvenue. d) After cross examination in the aforesaidmanner, it is open to the respondent to reissue theimpugned communication with regard to aspects otherthan cross examination aspect. 10. As these directions douse the anxiety of the writpetitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaiddirections. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CO)//True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kak https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 2(4),No.46, M G Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. +1cc to M/s.Nithyaesh and Vaibhav, Advocate SR.No.61057 W.P.No.21166 of 2019and W.M.P.Nos.20366 & 20368 of 2019VG II(CO)GMY(20/08/2019)