T.r.dinakaran v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 18.10.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD) Nos.19829 to 19840 of 2016 M.SUBRAMANIAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19829 of 2016 SRI JEGADISH AUTO FINANCEREP. BY ITS PARTNER R.PRABHAKARAN S/O.M.RATHINAM D.NO.253-B IIND FLOOR JAWAHAR BAJAR KARUR 639 001 ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19830 of 2016 MADURAI AUTO FINANCEREP. BY ITS PARTNER R.PRABHAKARAN S/O M.RATHINAM D.NO. 253 -B IIND FLOOR JAWAHAR BAJAR KARUR - 639 001. ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19831 of 2016 SRI SIVALAYA ENTERPRISESREP. BY ITS PARTNER R.PRABHAKARAN S/O. M.RATHINAM D.NO.253-B IIND FLOOR JAWAHAR BAJAR,KARUR - 639 001 ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19832 of 2016D.S.SENTHILVEL ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19833 of 2016 SRI SADASIVAM COMBINESREP. BY ITS PARTNER R.PRABHAKARAN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/S/O M.RATHINAM D.NO. 253 -B IIND FLOOR JAWAHAR BAJAR,KARUR - 639 001. ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19834 of 2016 A.VIJAYAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19835 of 2016 K.PONNUSAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19836 of 2016 P.SENTHIL ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19837 of 2016 SOODAMANI LEASINGS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER R.KATHIRESAN S/O.RAMASAMY N.R.M.P. STREET T.A.M. COMPLEX,COVAI ROAD, KARUR. ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19838 of 2016 SRI SIVALAYA ADVANCESREP. BY ITS PARTNER R.PRABHAKARAN S/O.M.RATHINAM D.NO.253-B IIND FLOOR JAWAHAR BAJAR,KARUR 639 001 ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19839 of 2016 T.R.DINAKARAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.19840 of 2016 -vs- 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Income Tax Officer, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 3.The Recovery Officer – 2, Income Tax Office, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents in all WPs Common Prayer in WP(MD)NOS.19829 To 19840 of 2016:-WritPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsto consider the petition dated 29.07.2016 in accordance to Rule11 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act within the timeframe as stipulated by this Court. For Respondents: Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy in all WPs O R D E R These Writ Petitions have been filed, seeking adirection to the respondents to consider the petitions dated29.07.2016 in accordance with Rule 11 of Second Schedule of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners and the learned counsel, who takes notice for therespondents. By consent the writ petitions itself are taken upfor final disposal at the admission stage. 3.It is the case of the petitioners that they havepurchased their respective properties situated in ThanichiyamVillage in various Survey Numbers through the registered saledeeds dated 16.06.2012, 19.06.2013, 19.07.2013, 13.02.2015,19.07.2013, 02.11.2012, 01.07.2013 19.07.2013 and 02.11.2012.When the petitioners intended to sell their properties, theycame to know that an order of attachment dated 21.12.2015 cameto be passed by the Income Tax Department. 4.The grievance of the petitioners is that they havepurchased their properties prior to the date of attachment.Therefore, the attachment order cannot have any retrospectiveeffect. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondentswould submit that the petitioners ought to have impleaded thevendor of the properties, so that it would have been easy forthe Income Tax Department to find out the authentication of thesale deeds. Admittedly, the vendors have not been impleaded inthese petitions. That cannot be an impediment for the officialsof the Income Tax Department to conduct enquiry as it is alwayshttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/open to them to summon the vendors, if they have any doubt withregard to authenticity of sale deeds. 4.The grievance of the petitioners is that they havepurchased their properties prior to the date of attachment.Therefore, the attachment order cannot have any retrospectiveeffect. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondentswould submit that the petitioners ought to have impleaded thevendor of the properties, so that it would have been easy forthe Income Tax Department to find out the authentication of thesale deeds. Admittedly, the vendors have not been impleaded inthese petitions. That cannot be an impediment for the officialsof the Income Tax Department to conduct enquiry as it is alwayshttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/open to them to summon the vendors, if they have any doubt withregard to authenticity of sale deeds. 6.Under such circumstances, non impleadment of thevendors will not be impediment for this Court to dispose ofthese petitions. Therefore, the third respondent is directed toconduct enquiry in accordance with Rule 11 of the SecondSchedule of the Income Tax Act within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, itis open to the third respondent to summon the vendors if needbe.7.The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the abovedirection. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Income Tax Officer, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. 3.The Recovery Officer – 2, Income Tax Office, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai – 625 002. +1 cc to M/s.S.Jawahar, Advocate in SR.No.61845+3 cc's to M/s.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate in SR.No. 61338 MJCSL/SS-2/22.11.2016: 4P/8C