Wp/3286/2019 Of M.arun v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.02.2019CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.3286 of 2019andWMP.No.3557 of 2019 M. Arun ...Petitioner VsThe Income Tax Officer, Ward I (4),No.3, Gandhi Road,Salem-7. ...Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari callingfor the records pertaining to the impugned Assessment Order ofthe respondent in PAN/GIR No. for the assessment year2010-2011 dated 25.12.2018. For Petitioner: Mr. C.K.M.AppajiFor Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel(Taxes) O R D E R Mr. A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel takes notice forthe respondent. At request and by consent of both parties, theWrit Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage ofadmission. 2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges an orderof re-assessment made under Section 143(3) read with section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.12.2018 in respect ofassessment year 2010-11. 3. The re-assessment has been completed bringing to tax thecash credits in a bank account in the Axis Bank bearingNo.170010100162449 opened during the financial year 2009-2010and allegedly standing in the name of the petitioner herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The petitioner had repeatedly taken a plea before theAssessing Officer to the effect that the account did not belongto him. However, the Assessing Officer had conducted enquirieswith the Bank based on which the cash deposits made in theaforesaid account to the tune of Rs. 24,20,000/- out of thetotal deposits of Rs.32,28,000/- had been brought to tax asincome of the petitioner as unexplained money under Section 69Aof the Income Tax Act. 5. Mr.Arun stresses on the position that the bank accountwas not that of the petitioner's stating that as such, there wasno justification for the addition of the cash credits appearingin the said account in the assessment of the petitioner's income.Learned counsel for the Revenue argues that verification of abank account is a matter of fact that cannot be undertaken bythis Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that theAssessing Officer has sought, vide letter dated 04.07.2018 issuedto the Bank, for copies of the Account Opening Form, KYC, addressproof and name and address of the person introducing the accountholder. The documents furnished were supplied to the petitioner,who disputed the signature on the documents stating that theywere not his. Other objections were also raised. 7. I am of the categoric view that detailed examination offacts required to appreciate the petitioner's submissions is notpossible in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, particularly when the facts are themselvesdisputed. 8. In this light of the matter, this Writ Petition isdismissed. The Writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge theimpugned order of re-assessment dated 25.12.2018 by way ofstatutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)within a period of one (1) month from today. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.mrn Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (4),No.3, Gandhi Road,Salem-7. +1cc to Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate, S.R.No.10295 W.P.No.3286 of 2019 and WMP.No.3557 of 2019Kak(14/03/2019)