Wp/1576/2014 Of Smt.d.v.mercy v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14.10.2014CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMW.P. No.1576 of 2014andM.P.No.1 of 20141.D.V.Mercy2.Dr.Arul Yagappan...PetitionersVs1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2) Thanjavur.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax II No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle III, 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34.4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward IV(2) 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34....RespondentsDate of Reserving the JudgmentDate of Pronouncing the Judgment08 .10.2014 14.10.2014Prayer :-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call forthe records of the second respondent in relation to the proceedingsvide C.No.7086(A)/CIT-II TRY/2013-14, dated 18.02.2014 with regard tothe files of Late Y.Victor and the proceedings vide C.NO.7086(A)/CIT-II TRY/2013-14, dated 18.02.2014 with regard to this files firstpetitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the secondrespondent to transfer the files of Late Y.Victor (PAN ) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and that of the first petitioner PAN BHTPN 5393P) to the files of thethird and fourth respondent respectively. Prayer amended as per order dated 10.06.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014 The petitioner initially filed this Writ Petition for issuanceof a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to transferthe Income Tax files relating to Late Mr.Y.Victor, the husband of thefirst petitioner and father of the second petitioner from the file ofthe Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2) Tanjore to the file of therespondents 3 and 4. 2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, this Court passedan interim order on 03.02.2014, directing the respondents to reportthe decision of the second respondent on the request made by thepetitioner for transferring the Income Tax files to the respondents 3and 4. The second respondent passed an order dated 18.02.2014,rejecting the petitioner's request. Therefore, the petitioner filedM.P.No.1 of 2014, to amend the prayer in the writ petition forissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orderdated 18.02.2014, and for a consequential direction to the secondrespondent to transfer the Income Tax files of Late Mr.Y.Victor fromthe jurisdiction of the first respondent to the respondents 3 and 4. 3. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior counsel appearing for thepetitioners submitted that the first petitioner was residing with herhusband at Tanjore till 2008, after which they moved to Chennai.That the petitioner's husband as well as the petitioner are theincome tax assessees and the petitioner's husband died on 29.03.2013,leaving behind the petitioners herein and another son and daughter ashis legal heirs. The first petitioner would state that she is nowstaying with her elder son at Chennai. It is further submitted thatthe first respondent issued notices to the first petitioner and hertwo sons under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 29.07.2013,calling upon them to produce the accounts and documents pertaining tothe estate of Late Mr.Y.Victor from the assessment years 2009-10 till2012 and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act for theassessment year 2012-13. Further, the learned counsel would statethat the first petitioner was not aware of the dealings andtransactions done by her husband nor she was aware of the non-filing of the returns of her husband from the assessment year 2009 onwards.Pursuant to the notice, the first petitioner appeared through herAuditor before the first respondent and requested that all futurenotices may be sent to her Chennai address. The petitioner paid asum of Rs.50,00,000/- as advance tax to the account of LateMr.Y.Victor. It is further submitted that the petitioner sought fortransfer of the files from Tanjore to Chennai, since it would beconvenient for the first petitioner and her son, the secondpetitioner, who are at Chennai and they have already filed returns atChennai and after the files were transferred from Tanjore to Chennai,the assessment would be completed. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orderpassed by the second respondent suffers from errors apparent on theface of the record and there is no justification for retaining thefiles at Tanjore and without considering the fact that no prejudicewould be caused to the department, if the files are transferred toChennai. Further, it is submitted that merely because notices wereissued at Tanjore and statement of the petitioner's son was recordedat Tanjore, it cannot be a ground to compel the petitioners, who arepermanently residing at Chennai to travel from Chennai to Tanjore oneach occasion for participating in the assessment proceedings.Further, it is submitted that existence of properties of Tanjorealone cannot be a ground for retaining the files at Tanjore, sincethe petitioners/assessees have shifted the permanent place ofresidence to Chennai as early as 2008. Further, it is submitted thatexcept issuing notice under the provisions of the Act, the firstrespondent has not heard the petitioners on the returns filed andtherefore, it is incorrect to state that the proceedings haveprogressed and therefore, the ground on which, the request made bythe petitioner was rejected, is not sustainable in law. Further, itis stated that Late Mr.Y.Victor had not filed returns for theassessment year 2007-08 and no notice was received by the petitionersfor the assessment year 2007-08 or for the assessment year 2008-09and therefore, the conclusion of the second respondent is totallybaseless and the rejection of the request is solely on the groundthat the petitioner had approached this Court for necessary relief.In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed on thedecision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in thecase of Devidas vs. Union of India, reported in [1993] 200 ITR 697(Bombay) and the decision of the High Court of Kerala in the case ofBenz Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in [1998] 232 ITR804 (Kerala). 5. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing counsel appearingof the respondents sought to sustain the impugned proceedings bycontending that Late Mr.Y.Victor sold the immovable property atTanjore for a total consideration of Rs.5,11,20,000/- on 07.04.2011,but no return of income was filed by Late Mr.Y.Victor for capital 5. Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing counsel appearingof the respondents sought to sustain the impugned proceedings bycontending that Late Mr.Y.Victor sold the immovable property atTanjore for a total consideration of Rs.5,11,20,000/- on 07.04.2011,but no return of income was filed by Late Mr.Y.Victor for capital gains arising out of the transfer of property assets. Further, it issubmitted that during the course of enquiry done with the brother ofthe second petitioner, it came to the notice of the department thatLate Mr.Y.Victor and the first petitioner sold the numerous plotsover the years and have not filed the returns of income from theassessment year 2007-08 onwards. Further, it is submitted that LateMr.Y.Victor has not made any investment in his name by using the saleproceeds for claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Income TaxAct relating to the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, it issubmitted that since the income assessed to tax has escaped fromassessment both in the case of Late Mr.Y.Victor as well as the firstpetitioner, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Actfor the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and subsequently noticeswere issued for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-2009 afterobtaining prior approval from the Joint Commissioner and Income Tax,Tanjore. Further notice was issued under Section 142(1) of theIncome Tax Act in the case of Late Mr.Y.Victor for the assessmentyear 2012-13. It is submitted that after receipt of the notices, thepetitioners instead of filing the return of income before the firstrespondent, who had issued notice under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, they have manually filed the return for the assessment years2009-10 and 2010-11 on 26.11.2013, before the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Business Circle III, Chennai, admitting a total income ofRs.13,88,500/- and Rs.18,93,310/- respectively. It is furthersubmitted that though in the said two returns, the petitioners havequantified the self assessment tax for the said assessment years, thesame was paid only on 31.01.2014, in response to the letter of theAssessing Officer, dated 16.01.2014. Further, it is submitted thatthe fact that the petitioners have filed their returns at Chennai,came to the knowledge of the first respondent only pursuant to theletter dated 16.12.2013, from the Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Circle-III, Chennai, wherein clarification was sought forpertaining to the details of the pending proceedings and on thequestion of jurisdiction. Further, it is submitted that the firstrespondent issued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act,calling upon the petitioners to appear on 27.11.2013. However, thepetitioners failed to respond by the said summons. 6. Further, the learned counsel submitted that all theproperties of the petitioner's husband as well as the petitioner aresituated at Tanjore District and the petitioner's husband's residenceis about 500 meters away from the Income Tax office, Tanjore and theproperties sold are at Tanjore and the second son of the firstpetitioner is also residing at Tanjore and all the details could becollected from the office of the Sub-Registrar and Banks at Tanjore.Further, it is stated that there are other properties which areunsold, which are also situated in Tanjore. In the light of theabove facts, it is submitted that the order passed by the secondrespondent rejecting the petitioner's request for transfer of the 6. Further, the learned counsel submitted that all theproperties of the petitioner's husband as well as the petitioner aresituated at Tanjore District and the petitioner's husband's residenceis about 500 meters away from the Income Tax office, Tanjore and theproperties sold are at Tanjore and the second son of the firstpetitioner is also residing at Tanjore and all the details could becollected from the office of the Sub-Registrar and Banks at Tanjore.Further, it is stated that there are other properties which areunsold, which are also situated in Tanjore. In the light of theabove facts, it is submitted that the order passed by the secondrespondent rejecting the petitioner's request for transfer of the Income Tax files, is perfectly justified and the power under Section127 of the Income Tax Act to transfer cases vest the Director Generalor Chief Commissioner or Commissioner after giving the assessee areasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter, wherever it ispossible to do so and after recording reasons for doing so thetransfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate tohim to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers alsosubordinate to him. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitionercannot compel the department to transfer the files from Tanjore toChennai merely on the ground that it is convenient to the firstpetitioner to attend the assessment proceedings at Chennai. It isfurther submitted that since all the properties and transactions werewithin the jurisdiction of the first respondent, the secondrespondent rightly rejected the request for transfer. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side andperused the materials placed on record.8. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act deals with power oftransfer of cases and the said provision reads as follows:- 127.Power of transfer cases:-(1) The Director General orChief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving theassessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in thematter, wherever it is possible to do so, and afterrecording his reasons for doing so, transfer any casefrom one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him(whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to anyother Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whetherwith or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinateto him. (2)Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officersfrom whom the case is to be transferred and the AssessingOfficer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to betransferred are not subordinate to the same DirectorGeneral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Directors General or ChiefCommissioners or Commissioners,. to whom such AssessingOfficers are subordinate are in agreement, then theDirector General or Chief Commissioner or Commissionerfrom whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferredmay, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunityof being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible todo so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, passthe order; (b)wheretheDirectorsGeneralorChiefCommissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may,similarly, be passed by the Board or any such DirectorGeneral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as theBoard may, by notification in the Official Gazette,authorise in this behalf. (3)Nothing in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2)shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to begiven where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer orAssessing Officers (whether with or without concurrentjurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers(whetherwithorwithoutconcurrentjurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers aresituated in the same city, locality or place. (b)wheretheDirectorsGeneralorChiefCommissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may,similarly, be passed by the Board or any such DirectorGeneral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as theBoard may, by notification in the Official Gazette,authorise in this behalf. (3)Nothing in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2)shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to begiven where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer orAssessing Officers (whether with or without concurrentjurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or AssessingOfficers(whetherwithorwithoutconcurrentjurisdiction) and the offices of all such officers aresituated in the same city, locality or place. (4) The transfer of a case under sub- section (1) orsub- section (2) may be made at any stage of theproceedings, and shall not render necessary the re- issueof any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer orAssessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation.- In section 120 and this section, the word"case", in relation to any person whose name is specifiedin any order or direction issued thereunder, means allproceedings under this Act in respect of any year whichmay be pending on the date of such order or direction orwhich may have been completed on or before such date, andincludes also all proceedings under this Act which may becommenced after the date of such order or direction inrespect of any year.] 9. On a reading of the above provision, it is seen that theobject for which such provision was enacted is for the purpose ofadministrative convenience. The said provision does not empower theAssessing Officer to transfer a case from his jurisdiction to that ofnature and even when the Director General or the Chief Commissioneror the Commissioner exercising such power, can transfer any caseafter recording his reasons for doing so. For the purpose ofrecording reasons, it is obvious that the Commissioner has toconsider the circumstances involved in each case. Undoubtedly, thefirst respondent has initiated proceedings, since the returns were tobe filed before the first respondent, since Late Mr.Y.Victor as wellas first petitioner were residing in Tanjore and the transaction from2007 onwards were done at Tanjore. Admittedly, the Commissioner didnot exercise jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act, but it is therequest made by the first petitioner on the ground that it would beconvenient for her to partake in the assessment proceedings, as shehas shifted her permanent residence to Chennai. The reason statedfor issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening is on the ground that no returns were filed by the firstpetitioner's husband from 2007 onwards. Admittedly, the petitioner'shusband passed away in 2013. When the transactions have taken placewithin the jurisdiction of the first respondent and the transactionpertained to the immovable property, the petitioners cannot insistthat the files should be transferred from Tanjore to Chennai solelyon the ground that it would be convenient for the first petitioner topartake in the assessment proceedings. reopening is on the ground that no returns were filed by the firstpetitioner's husband from 2007 onwards. Admittedly, the petitioner'shusband passed away in 2013. When the transactions have taken placewithin the jurisdiction of the first respondent and the transactionpertained to the immovable property, the petitioners cannot insistthat the files should be transferred from Tanjore to Chennai solelyon the ground that it would be convenient for the first petitioner topartake in the assessment proceedings. 10. In the case of Autofin Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Taxreported in 1977 (106) ITR 638, a Writ Petition was filed before theAndhra Pradesh High Court to quash an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad, dated 20.10.1972. The saidorder was passed on an application made by the petitioner seeking fortransfer of the file from a particular Income Tax Officer to someother Officer on the ground that the said Officer was teasing andharassing the second petitioner as well as the company and therefore,the petitioners' apprehended that they would be denied jurisdictionin the hands of the said Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax called for a report from the Inspecting AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax and passed an order stating that thetransfer could not be effected at that stage, as arrears assessmentare pending, which have to be completed expeditiously and thepetitioner was requested to co-operate with the Income Tax Officerin the expeditious completion of assessment and in case of anydifficulty, he could contact the Inspecting Assistant CommissionerRange-IV, Hyderabad. Challenging the said order, the petitionersfiled the Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Courtcontending that the Commissioner did not deal with the petitioner'sapplication for transfer and it is the Income Tax Officer thatcommunicated the order and the power under Section 127 of the IncomeTax Act was not exercised. However, this was found to be a wrongsubmission, since the files disclosed by the Commissioner exercisedpower under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. It was next contendedthat the petitioners were not given an opportunity to make theirrepresentation before the impugned order was passed. The Court aftertaking note of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act as amended in 1967pointed out that sub-section (1) of Section 127 provides for givingthe assessee has a reasonable opportunity of being heard in thematter, wherever, it is possible to do so, and reasons should berecorded for transfer of the case from any Income Tax Officer to anyother Income Tax Officer and similar power could be exercised by theBoard; but the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 127 of theIncome Tax Act states that such an opportunity need not be givenwhere the transfer is from any Income Tax Officer to any other IncomeTax Officer and the Officers of all such Income Tax Officers aresituated in the same city, locality or place. It was further pointedout that the Commissioner in the said case, did not transfer the caseand therefore, the question of giving an opportunity of being heard or giving the reasons in the matter as required by Section 127(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, does not arise. or giving the reasons in the matter as required by Section 127(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, does not arise. 11. It is further pointed out that the assessee also could moveeither the Commissioner or the Board for transfer of his case andthere is no reason as to why the power should be exercised only suo-moto and not on the application of the assessee. It was further heldthat the Commissioner was bound to exercise the power of transfer inaccordance with Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, if proper groundsare made out. After holding that the assessee can also seek forinvoking the power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, it washeld that it is for the Commissioner or the Board to consider anddecide whether the case is a fit one for exercising jurisdictionconferred by Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. On the question asto whether such an order could be interfered under Article 226 of theConstitution, it was pointed out that the question whether thecircumstances warrant transfer or not is a matter for considerationand decision by the Commissioner and the Commissioner onconsideration of the representation of the petitioners and the reportwas satisfied that it is not a fit case for transfer and suchcircumstances, the Court will be reluctant to interfere under Article226 of the Constitution with the discretion exercised by theCommissioner unless there is a patent error of law or error apparenton the face of the record. Therefore, the Writ Petition came to bedismissed by holding that under Article 226 of the Constitution, theWrit Court would not normally interfered with the discretionexercised by the Commissioner under Section 127 of the Income TaxAct, unless the order is ex facie perverse or vitiated by any patenterror. I am in respectful agreement with a view taken by the Hon'bleDivision Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaiddecision. 12. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitionersplaced reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombayin the case of Devidas vs. Union of India, referred supra, andsubmitted that the total scheme relating to jurisdiction and transferunder Sections 120, 124 and 127 of the Income Tax Act is aproportionate mix of consideration for convenience of an assessee andinterest of the Revenue and it aims at striking a balance between theprivate and public interest. The question which fell forconsideration, in the said case was whether an assessee under theIncome Tax Act was entitled to a reasonable opportunity of hearingand a reasoned order when his application calling in question thejurisdiction of an Assessing Officer and for transfer of a case tothe other Assessing Officer is rejected. The Revenue in defence ofthe impugned order stated that a statute can, in appropriate cases,exclude the principle of natural justice; since the assessee has nolegal right of being assessed by any particular Assessing Officer; that Section 127 of the Income Tax Act restricts the obligation ofhearing and passing a speaking order only when the case is to betransferred suo motu; that Section 127 of the Income Tax Act excludesby necessary implication an opportunity of hearing when there isrefusal to transfer; and that in any case, perusal of the contents ofan application made by the petitioner and the enquiry report obtainedfrom the Assessing Officer is sufficient compliance with theprinciples of natural justice. After taking note of the observationsmade by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kanji Mal and Sons v. CITreported in [1982] 138 ITR 391, Devi Dayal Marwah v. CIT reported in[1964] 52 ITR 829 and the decision in the case of Autofin Ltd., vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, referred supra, it was held that it istrue that Section 127 of the Income Tax Act refers to suo motujurisdiction, but it is settled law that such jurisdiction can betriggered either by an assessee or the Revenue and the power isconferred to remedy any injustice and it is always open to bring tonotice any error, illegality or injustice. On examining the impugnedorder which was subject matter of the said case, it was held to bevitiated because of absence of hearing and recording of reasons.However, it was held that no hard and fast rule can be laid downabout the extent and manner of hearing and reasons to be recorded andall depends upon the facts and circumstances on each case.Therefore, the High Court of Bombay though culled out the legalposition and observed that there can be no hard and fast rule and theextent and manner of hearing and reasons depend on the facts andcircumstances of each case. On the facts of the said case, the Courtwas satisfied that the impugned order therein was vitiated because ofabsence of hearing and recording of reasons. 13. The High Court of Kerala in the case of Benz Corporation vs.Income Tax Officer, (supra), held that the power of transfer underSection 127(1) of the Income Tax Act is a quasi-judicial one and suchpower has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner and not inan arbitrary or mechanical way and passing a reasoned order is one ofthe requirements of fairness in action. In the said case, theDepartment issued notice proposing to transfer the files and calledfor the objections from the assessee, who filed his objections andwithout reference to the objections, a notification was issued fortransfer. Therefore, the Court interfered with the said order andremanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner to take a decisionafresh. 14. In the case on hand, it is the petitioner, who sought fortransfer by representation dated 12.02.2014 submitted through theassessee's representative in person on the date of hearing. Thesecond respondent considered the representation, called for a reportfrom the Assessing Officer and the contentions raised by therepresentative of the assessee was considered and reasoned order hasbeen passed. It is to be noted that as the first petitioner/assessee 14. In the case on hand, it is the petitioner, who sought fortransfer by representation dated 12.02.2014 submitted through theassessee's representative in person on the date of hearing. Thesecond respondent considered the representation, called for a reportfrom the Assessing Officer and the contentions raised by therepresentative of the assessee was considered and reasoned order hasbeen passed. It is to be noted that as the first petitioner/assessee stating that she has permanently shifted her residence at Chennai, onthe sole ground of her convenience, she seeks for transfer of thefiles. It is to be noted that the assessee in default was not onlythe first respondent, but also her husband, Late Mr.Y.Victor as well.No returns were filed from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards andduring the relevant period, there were several sale transactions inrespect of properties situated at Tanjore which would fall within thejurisdiction of the first respondent. It is only after notices wereissued under Sections 148, 142(1), of the Income Tax Act, returnswere filed at Chennai for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11,but were not filed before the first respondent. The AssessingOfficer in his report has specifically stated that the fact that thereturns were filed at Chennai came to his knowledge only after aletter was received from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Business Circle-III, Chennai, dated 16.12.2013 to clarify the detailsof pendency and jurisdiction for further action. The petitioner didnot respond to the summons issued by the first respondent underSection 131 of the Income Tax Act and failed to appear before theAssessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer opined that theassessee was not co-operating with the department and avoidingfurther enquiry. That apart, the younger son of the first petitionerwas residing permanently at Tanjore, who could very well collect therequired particulars from the Banks at Tanjore and Sub-Registraroffice Tanjore and other immoveable properties, which were retainedby the family were situated in Tanjore District. Further, astatement has also been recorded from the first petitioner's youngerson under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the impugnedproceedings cannot be stated to be an order either arbitrary orerroneous, more so, when the second respondent has recorded reasons.Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior counselappearing for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable on factsand as held by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Devidas vs.Union of India, (supra), there cannot be any hard and fast rule insuch matters. 15. Thus, the impugned order being a reasoned order and nothinghas been placed before this Court to show that the impugned order iseither ex facie perverse or vitiated by any patent error and that thepower under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act could be exercised inaccordance with the said Section, if proper grounds are made out. Inthe impugned order reasons have been assigned for rejecting therequest for transfer, which is based on the records. In suchcircumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with thediscretion exercised by the second respondent in refusing to transferthe case from Tanjore to Chennai. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CO)//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarpbnTo1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2) Thanjavur.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax II No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle III, 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34.4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward IV(2) 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34.1 CC to Mr.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate SR.No. 491311 CC to Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate SR.No. 48892 W.P. No.1576 of 2014and M.P.No.1 of 2014 In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CO)//True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarpbnTo1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (2) Thanjavur.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax II No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle III, 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34.4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward IV(2) 121, Uthamar Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34.1 CC to Mr.T.S.Baskaran, Advocate SR.No. 491311 CC to Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate SR.No. 48892 W.P. No.1576 of 2014and M.P.No.1 of 2014 KKI (CO)PSI (20.10.2014) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/