Thiruporur Govindaswamy Venkatesh v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 1(6)
High Court
30 Oct 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Thiruporur Govindaswamy Venkatesh v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 1(6)
Date of order
30 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
2014-15, 2014-2015, 2018-2019
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Thiruporur Govindaswamy Venkatesh v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 1(6), the High Court (2023) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the central issue to be decided in this case is as to, whether the 1[st] respondent being the jurisdictional officer for resident status a...
Decision: With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
W.P.No.5877 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.5877 of 2022
andW.M.P.Nos.5976 & 14342 of 2022
Thiruporur Govindaswamy Venkatesh
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 1(6) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.
2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai-1 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai.
3.Income Tax Officer
International Taxation 2(2)
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the Respondents and quash the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in PAN: dated 27.03.2021 in DIN and ITBA No.
Page 1 of 8
ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1031827987(1) issued by the 1[st] respondent for the assessment year 2014-15.
For Petitioner: M/s.N.V.Lakshmi
For Respondents
: Mr.Prabu Mukund Arun Kumar Junior Standing Counsel
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice issued by the 1[st ]
respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (in short, 'the Act') , 1961 dated 27.03.2021 for the Assessment year 2014-2015.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 1[st ]respondent has issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, who is having
no jurisdiction. But the 3[rd] respondent is having the jurisdiction to issue the said notice. Even as per the provisions of the Act, the 3[rd] respondent is the Jurisdictional Officer, empowered to issue the notice under Section 148 for reassessment.
3. On the other hand, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner has filed his Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Income Tax Returns as a resident. When the petitioner himself has submitted his Income Tax Returns under the status of resident, then the Jurisdictional Officer is entitled to issue notice under Section 148 as resident assessment. Therefore, 1[st] respondent, who is the Jurisdictional Officer for the persons falling under the status of resident, has issued the said notice.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner filed his returns during the Assessment Year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 as non-resident. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent, who is the Jurisdictional Officer had initiated Section 148 proceedings. Even though the petitioner filed his returns as resident, the Department came to know about that there was a mistake committed by the petitioner and later the Department transferred it to the 3[rd] respondent.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the central issue to be decided in this case is as to, whether the 1[st] respondent being the jurisdictional officer for resident status assessees is empowered to issue notice under Section 148.
Page 3 of 8
6. Since the petitioner initially filed the return by showing his status as
resident, the 1[st] respondent is the jurisdictional officer to issue Section 148 notice for the residential assessment. However, the Department assessed the returns filed by the petitioner for the Assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 through 3[rd] respondent, who is the jurisdictional officer for the assessees of non-resident. Since the 3[rd] respondent is the jurisdictional Officer for non-residents and because of the mistake committed by the petitioner in filing the returns for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 by showing the status as resident, Section 148 proceedings were initiated by the 1[st] respondent.
7. Even though the 1[st] respondent initiated Section 148 proceedings subsequently the Department transferred it to the 3[rd] respondent, who has now been continuing with the proceedings.
7. Even though the 1[st] respondent initiated Section 148 proceedings subsequently the Department transferred it to the 3[rd] respondent, who has now been continuing with the proceedings.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the respondent may be directed to furnish the relevant documents and other details, under which the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income
Page 4 of 8
Tax Act were initiated.
9. As far as this aspect is concerned, since now the files have been transferred to the 3[rd] respondent, who is the jurisdictional officer empowered to make the assessment and reassessment proceedings for the non-resident assessee and also empowered to initiate the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, it is for the petitioner to make his request before the concerned officer, if required, in which case the 3[rd] respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law.
10. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the initiation of proceedings with the third respondent. In fact, the respondents had rectified the mistake of the petitioner and transferred the proceedings from the 1[st ]respondent to the 3[rd] respondent. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment for the 3[rd] respondent to continue with the proceedings as it is. However, the 3[rd] respondent is directed to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
JeniIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / No
30.10.2023
(1/2)
To
1.The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Circle 1(6) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai-1 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.
3.The Income Tax Officer International Taxation 2(2)
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai.
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.Jeni
W.P.No.5877 of 2022
30.10.2023
(1/2)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.