Wp/11781/2008 Of Shri Deepak Chinnapattan v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andra Pradesh-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11781 of 2008 Between: Shri Deepak Chinnapattan S/o Shri Manohar RaoR/o. 3-4-1013/22, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax,Andra Pradesh-1, Income -Tax towers,Masab Tank, Hyderabad.Andra Pradesh-1, Income -Tax towers,Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Posnett Bhavan, Ramkote, Hyderabad. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh,Home Department,Rep. by the secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.Home Department,Rep. by the secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of Indiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filedherein the High Court will be pleased to issue anappropriate writ, order direction more particularly a writ ofMandamus or such other appropriate writ declaring theinaction on the 1st respondent herein in not passing anyorder on the application dated 17th August, 2007 made bythe petitioner herein, as being arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to expeditiouslydispose of the said application of the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.VENKATESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.:MR.J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOMETAX) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring inaction on thepart of the first respondent in not passing any order on theapplication dated 17.8.2007 made by the petitioner, asillegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the firstrespondent to expeditiously dispose of the said application,the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is proprietor of Pooja Constructionsengaged in construction and sale of residential flats and isan Income Tax assessee. While so, the petitionersubmitted returns for the year 2000-2001 showing incomeof Rs.3,12,046/-, as against which assessment wascompleted and taxable income was determined atRs.37,49,370/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal beforethe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad,which was partly allowed by order, dated 22.12.2003. Thisorder was assailed by the petitioner before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, which, by order, dated 3.8.2005 remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with adirection to consider the claim of the petitioner fromunexplained sources. Consequently, the income of thepetitioner for the year 2000-2001 was reassessed atRs.13,68,048/- and demanded for payment of the taxaccordingly. The Assessing Officer also initiated penaltyproceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs.9,00,000/-,which was reduced to Rs.3,45,000/- in appeal, by thepetitioner. The Assessing Officer also initiated prosecutionin CC No. 39 of 2007 before the Special Judge forEconomic offences, Hyderabad, for suppression of income.The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.08.2007seeking to compound the alleged offences, which ispending consideration before the first respondents andalso gave an undertaking dated 10.9.2007, to pay thecompounding fee as determined by the Department. Thepetitioner, now, seeks a direction to the respondents toconsider his representation, dated 17.8.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute with regard to the abovechequered events. The only relief sought for by thepetitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents todispose of the representation, dated 17.08.2007, submittedby him, to the first respondent. Consequently, without adverting to merits or Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute with regard to the abovechequered events. The only relief sought for by thepetitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents todispose of the representation, dated 17.08.2007, submittedby him, to the first respondent. Consequently, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the claims made by the petitioner, we deem itappropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of therepresentation dated 17.08.2007, submitted by thepetitioner, if not already disposed of. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposedof. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. JUNE 10, 2008MAS __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to2.2CD copiesForm-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}