Sub Assistant Registrar v. To1.The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 3(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.02.2020CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH M/s.Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn Ltd.,4[th] Floor, CMDA Tower-II,Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,Egmore, Chennai – 600 008Represented by its Managing Director,R.Kirlosh Kumar.. PetitionerVs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 3(1), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Principal Commisisoner of Income Tax -3, Room No.410, 4[th] Floor, Main Building, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari, to call for the records of the Petitioner on thefile of the 2[nd] Respondent and quash the impugned noticeu/s.263 of the Act in C.No.3033(10)/PCIT-3/2018-19/PAN : dated 18.03.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15passed by the 2[nd] Respondent. ORDER The petitioner Tamil Nadu State Marketing CorporationLimited (TASMAC) has challenged a show cause notice issuedunder Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act')dated 18.03.2019 issued by the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax proposing to revise the assessment computedhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/originally for Assessment Year (in short 'AY') under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016. The respondents had calledupon the assessee to appears and show cause as to why theoriginal order of assessment not be treated as erroneous andprejudicial to the interests of revenue and consequentlyrevised. The respondent had expressed the view that the VATpayable would not be allowable as a deduction in computing theprofits and gains of business or profession, specifically inthe light of the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. 2.Though learned counsel for the petitioner offers somearguments on the merits of the matter, I refrain fromadverting to the same, being of the view that this writpetition is premature. The impugned communication is only anotice to show cause and hence all arguments objecting to theproposals may well be advanced before the respondent for hisconsideration. The apprehension expressed by the petitionerappears to emanate from paragraph-5 of the impugned noticewherein the respondent states that 'In view of the above, theAssessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961on 30.12.2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial tothe interest of revenue.' thus indicating that thecommunication is, in fact, an order couched as a show causenotice. To allay these apprehensions, it would suffice thatthe second respondent is directed to address the issue raisedin the SCN without any preconceived notions and pass an order,in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. 3.Let objections be filed by the petitioner within aperiod of three weeks from date of receipt of a copy of thisorder and, after hearing the petitioner by issue of personalhearing notice, let orders be passed within a period of fourweeks from date of conclusion of personal hearing. 4.This writ petition is disposed as above. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs To1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 3(1), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034. 2.The Principal Commisisoner of Income Tax -3, Room No.410, 4[th] Floor, Main Building, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate SR.12816+1cc to M/s.Hema Murali Krishnan, Advocate SR.12546 W.P.No.8829 of 2019 andWMP.No.9394 of 2019 SS(CO)CB(16/03/2020)