Wp/18014/2018 Of S.thalapathy v. The Income Tax Officer

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM S.Thalapathy...Petitioner PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for the records in relation to the communication of therespondent dated 12.6.2018 in AEHPT4604C/NCW-1(1)/CBE/A.Y.2010-11, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent tofurnish the documents requested in the petitioner'scommunication dated 04.6.2018. For Petitioner :Ms.G.Janane for M/s.G.R.AssociatesFor Respondent :Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC andMr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, SC Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel andMr.A.N.R. Jayaprathap, learned Standing Counsel accept noticefor the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitionitself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenginga communication sent by the respondent dated 12.6.2018 inresponse to his representation dated 04.6.2018. The petitionersent the said representation stating that in continuation of hisrequest for a copy of the assessment order, which was acceptedby the respondent, he requested that he may be supplied thefollowing information/documents : “1. Certified copy of the notice underSection 148 with proof of date of dispatchand date of service; 2. Copy of the evidence as to on whomnotice under Section 148 was served; 3. Certified copy of the subsequentnotices referred to in the assessment orderwith proof of date of service and details ofthe person on whom such notices were served; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Certified copy of the reasonsrecorded resulting in the issue of noticeunder Section 148; and 5. Date, on which, details as to thecash deposits into savings bank account cameto the knowledge of the Assessing Officerand if there is delay in taking cognizance,reasons for the same.” 3. The respondent, by the impugned communication, statedthat the order of assessment giving details of notices issuedand the issues involved were already sent to the petitioner andthat there is no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichenables the respondent to provide certified copy of thedocuments/details requested by the petitioner as specified inthe letter after the completion of the assessment proceedings.Therefore, the respondent declined to provide details/documents. 4. Admittedly, the request made by the petitioner forfurnishing a copy of the assessment order has been acceded to bythe respondent. In the assessment order, there has been areference to a notice dated 31.3.2017 issued under Section 148of the said Act stated to have been served on the assessee on01.4.2017. Apart from that, it has been further stated that thenotice under Section 142(1) of the said Act dated 14.11.2017 wasissued and served on the petitioner on 15.11.2017 and that theassessee had not responded to any of the notices or the letterssent. Further, there has also been a reference to the show causenotice dated 05.12.2017, proposing to complete the assessment exparte treating the cash deposits as unexplained deposits andbringing them into tax, which was issued giving the assesseetime till 19.12.2017 to submit his objections. It has beenfurther stated that even after the time given, there was noresponse from the assesssee. 5. Thus, the respondent, in the assessment order dated26.12.2017, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte on theground that the petitioner did not represent his case thoughenough opportunity has been granted. The respondent rejected therequest made by the petitioner on the ground that already, acopy of the assessment order has been given, which is therelevant information regarding the notices issued and thedetails. 5. Thus, the respondent, in the assessment order dated26.12.2017, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte on theground that the petitioner did not represent his case thoughenough opportunity has been granted. The respondent rejected therequest made by the petitioner on the ground that already, acopy of the assessment order has been given, which is therelevant information regarding the notices issued and thedetails. 6. However, the petitioner has only sought for the copiesof documents, which have been referred to in the assessmentorder, since, according to the respondent, notices werecommunicated to the petitioner. In my considered view, therespondent could not have denied the request made by thepetitioner, as the petitioner is entitled to canvass all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issues before the Appellate Authority, before whom, the appealpetition filed by the petitioner against the assessment order ispending. Thus, this Court finds that the documents in so far itrelates to S.Nos.1 to 4 are concerned have to be furnished tothe petitioner, failing which, there will be a violation of theprinciples of natural justice. So far as S.No.5, wherein thepetitioner seeks the date, on which, the details as to cashdeposit into the savings bank account came to the knowledge ofthe Assessing Officer, is concerned, this would touch upon themerits of the assessment. 7. Therefore, the request, as framed by the petitioner inS.No.5, cannot be acceded to, but only the dates, on which, thecash deposits were made into the savings bank account, can befurnished and in fact, such details may find a place even in thereasons for reopening. Therefore, the respondent has to furnishthe documents listed in S.Nos.1 to 4 and in respect of S.No.5,the respondent is directed to furnish only the details as to thedates, on which, the cash deposits were made into the savingsbank account. The above directions shall be complied with by therespondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order.