Wp/12761/2019 Of S.mahesh v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.10.2019CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABUW.P.No.12761 of 2019andW.M.P.No.12976 of 2019S.Mahesh...Petitionervs. The Income Tax OfficerWard-1(5), Tiruppur. ...RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of therespondent leading to passing of assessment order dated26.12.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondentto pass re-assessment order afresh after affording anopportunity to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.SrinivasSenior standing counselO R D E R This writ petition is filed challenging the order ofassessment dated 26.12.2018 passed under Section 144 r/w147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessmentyear is 2010-2011. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials placedbefore this Court. 3. It is seen that the Assessing Officer believedthe income escaped the assessment relevant to the subjectmatter assessment year and wanted to reopen the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Accordingly, the notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 dated 31.03.2017 was issued to theAssessee. Though it is claimed by the Assessee that nosuch notice was served on him, the counter filed by therespondent in clear and categorical terms states that allthe notices, letters and assessment orders along withdemand notices etc., were sent to AtthamppampalayamPudur, Velampalayam, Kangeyam, Tirupur District, as perthe address shown in the Assessee's Pan database and alsoprovided by the Karnataka Bank Ltd., from their records. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is notdisputing the fact that the address referred to in thecounter is the address referred to in the Pan card of thepetitioner. 5. When such being the factual position, I do notthink that the petitioner is entitled to question theconsequential assessment order without filing anyobjection to the notice for reopening and thereafter,participating in the assessment proceedings by raisingall the contentions. Now, the petitioner seeks to raisesome contentions on merits of the assessment by placingsome factual aspects of the matter. 6. I do not think that this Court can look intothose contentions and express any view, when admittedly,as against the impugned order, the petitioner has a rightto file an appeal before the concerned AppellateAuthority, where he can raise all the points and contestthe matter. Considering the fact that the petitioner hasnot filed any reply to the notice for reopening theassessment and also the show cause notice for completionof the assessment dated 12.11.2018, this Court is notinclined to entertain this writ petition to decide thematter on merits. On the other hand, this Court is of theview that granting liberty to the petitioner to work outhis remedy by filing statutory appeal before theconcerned Appellate Authority, would meet the ends ofjustice. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any view on themerits of the claim made by both parties, this WritPetition is disposed of, by permitting the petitioner tofile such an appeal before the concerned AppellateAuthority within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of the copy of the order. If any such appeal isfiled, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance withlaw, without reference to the period of limitation. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any view on themerits of the claim made by both parties, this WritPetition is disposed of, by permitting the petitioner tofile such an appeal before the concerned AppellateAuthority within a period of two weeks from the date ofreceipt of the copy of the order. If any such appeal isfiled, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance withlaw, without reference to the period of limitation. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarmkToThe Income Tax OfficerWard-1(5), Tiruppur. Copy to The Section Officer, ER Section, High Court, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.S.Sathyanarayanan , Advocate SR.No. 89884+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas , Advocate SR.No. 89500W.P.No.12761 of 2019A.SK(22/11/2019)