T.n.tiruselvam v. The Income Tax Officer - I (2), Pondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.09.2017CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMWrit Petition No.28046 of 2004 T.N.Tiruselvam vs 1. The Income Tax Officer - I (2), Pondicherry. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax State of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. 3. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, New Delhi rep. by its Director. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call forthe records of the third respondent dated 31.10.2003 inF.No.212/129/2001-I TAII and quash the same and consequentiallydirect the respondents to complete the assessment for theAssessment Year 1996 - 97 of the petitioner by accepting theReturns submitted by the Assessee. For Petitioner : Mr.S.DevanathanFor Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Heard Mr.S.Devanathan, the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, the learned Seniorstanding counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition as impugnedorder passed by the third respondent dated 31.10.2003 by whichthe petitioner's application filed under Section 119(2)(d) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 has been rejected on the ground thatthe reasons given by the petitioner for belated filing of return-- reasonable offence and does not a case of genuine hardship https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and not a fit case to condone the delay under Section 119 (2)(d)of the Act. The petitioner filed his returns for the assessmentyear 1996 - 97 and 19979 - 98 on 31.03.2001. 3. Admittedly, the returns were belated having beenfile will be on two years. Therefore, to unable the returns tobe accepted and processed the petitioner's filed an applicationfor -- the assessment years for condonation of delay in filingand requesting his charge to exercising his powers under Section119(2)(b). So far as the return of the assessment year 19997 -98 is concern the delay was condoned the returns were processedand the petitioner granted a revision of Rs.17,076/-. However,with respect of the application filed for condonation of delayin filing the return for the assessment year 1996 - 97 whichappears because the reason claim of Rs.1,63,190/- on account ofthe jurisdictional hierarchic, the matter have to go before thethird respondent. The third respondent rejected the same by anorder passed during April 2003, this was put to challenge thepetitioner in W.P.No.19449 of 2003 and the said writ petitionwas allowed and the matter was remanded to the respondents forfresh consideration. With a direction to dispose of the sameafter affording an opportunity to the petitioner while disposingof the said writ petition by order dated 04.08.2003. The filinghas been recorded by the Court "3. The case of the petitioner is that he hasfiled Income Tax Returns for the year 1996 - 1997 and1997 - 1998 on 30.03.2001 before the first respondent.The first respondent has recommended to condone thedelay in filing returns for the period 19997 - 1998 andaccordingly the delay was also condoned, assessmentorder was passed and refund of excess tax paid by thepetitioner for the said assessment year was also made.According to the petitioner, in respect of the returnsfor the assessment year 1996 - 1997 filed along withreturns for the period 1997 - 1998 seeking condonationwas dismissed by passing the impugned communicationwithout giving opportunityto the petitioner on theground that the reason was not valid. According thepetitioner, the third respondent is not the competentauthority to pass the impugned order. 4. In any event, the fact remains that theimpugned order has been passed without affording anopportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the impugnedorder is set aside, the matter is remitted back to therespondents for fresh consideration. The respondentsare directed to dispose of the same in accordance withlaw and on its own merits after affording opportunityto the petitioner within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order." 4. In terms of the above directions, the third respondenthad issue notice to the petitioner to sent a return petition onor before 21.10.2003. This direction was complied with by thepetitioner by submitting his returns submits which has beenrejected different by the impugned order. 5. Firstly the impugned order, the third respondent isnot even adverted to the petitioner belated for the assessmentyear 1997 - 98 was considered as the relief granted. This so --of the said year under Section 119(2)(b) should be equallyacceptable for the assessment year 1996 - 97 and merely becauseon account of jurisdiction hierarchic another authoritiessuperior to the authority to decide the matter of the year 1997- 98 to take a decision, the such decision cannot be contrary tothe decision arrived at by another authority exercisinganalogous powers under the Income Tax Act. Further, more I findthat the petitioner is an individual assessee having beengranted relief for the assessment year 1997 - 98. No prejudicewould be caused to the some yardstick same applicable -- for theassessment year 1997 - 97 also. 6. For all the above reasons the Writ Petition isallowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal has tobe set aside, namely the first respondent is directed to processthe returns for the assessment year 1996 - 97 and in accordancewith law. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rna/sd To 1. The Income Tax Officer - I (2), Pondicherry. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax State of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. State of Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. 3. The Director Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, New Delhi Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, New Delhi +1 cc to M/s.Devanathan Advocate sr 64747 +1 cc to M/s.A.P.Srinivas Advocate sr 64995 mp(co)aa06/10/2017 W.P No.28046 of 2004