Wp/34668/2018 Of M/S.dishnet Wireless Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON 01.12.2021PRONOUNCED ON 17.06.2022CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANANW.P.NOS.34668, 34671, 34649, 34654,34657 & 34664 OF 2018ANDW.M.P.NOS.40210, 40216, 40178, 40195, 40185,40221, 40176, 40184, 40207, 40204,40192, 40209 OF 2018 M/s.Dishnet Wireless Limited,Spencer Plaza, 5[th] Floor,769, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002,Represented by its Authorized Signatory,Mr.K.P.Varadharajan. ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.34668& 34671 of 2018 M/s.Aircel Cellular Limited,Spencer Plaza 5[th] Floor,769, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002,Represented by its Authorised Signatory,Mr.K.P.Varadharajan. ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.34664,34657, 34649 & 34654 of 2018 .Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD),Company Range – 1 , 6[th] Floor,Aayakar Bhavan – Wanaparthy Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent in W.P.Nos.34668& 34671 of 2018 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – 1(1), 6[th] Floor,Aayakar Bhavan – Wanaparthy Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent in W.P.Nos.34664,34657, 34649 & 34654 of 2018 PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34668 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records comprised in the impugned Notice dated28.03.2018 bearing PAN: , as also letter dated07.12.2018 bearing PAN: , the notice dated 28.09.2018bearing PAN: and the order dated 24.12.2018 bearingPAN: /ACIT(OSD)/2018-19 issued in furtherance thereofby the respondent and all proceedings pursuant thereto, andquash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional andconsequently forbear the respondent from proceeding withre-assessment under Section 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 2012-13. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34664 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to callfor the records comprised in the impugned notice dated26.03.2018 bearing PAN: as also letter dated15/11/2018 beaing PAN: /Company/CC1(1) 2018-2019, thenotice dated 27/09/2018 bearing PAN: and the orderdated 17/12/2018 bearing PAN: /AY-2013-2014 issued infurtherance thereof by the respondent and all proceedingspursuant thereto, and quash the same as illegal, arbitarary andunconstitutional and consequently forbear the respondent fromproceedings with re-assessement under sections 147 and 148 ofthe Income Tax, 1961 in respect of the Assessemnt Year 2013-2014. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34671 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, tocall for the records comprised in impugned notice dated28/03/2018 bearing PAN: , as also letter dated07/12/2018 bearing PAN: , the notice dated 28/09/2018bearing PAN: and the order dated 24/12/2018 bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PAN: /ACIT(OSD)/2018-2019 issued in furtherancethereof by the Respondent and all proceedings pursuant thereto,and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutionaland consequently forbear the Respondent from proceedings withre-assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-2012. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34657 OF 2018:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PAN: /ACIT(OSD)/2018-2019 issued in furtherancethereof by the Respondent and all proceedings pursuant thereto,and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutionaland consequently forbear the Respondent from proceedings withre-assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-2012. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34657 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to Callfor the records comprised in the impugned notice dated27/03/2018 bearing PAN: , as also letter dated15/11/2018 bearing PAN: /Company/CC-I(1)/2018-2019,the notice dated 27/09/2018 bearing PAN: /2011-202 andthe order dated 17/12/2018 bearing PAN: AAACS4449/AY 2011-2012issued in furtherance thereof by the respondent and allproceedings pursuant thereto, and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently forbear therespondent from proceedings with re-assessement under Sections147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of theassessement year 2011-2012. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34649 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to Callfor the records comprised in the impugned notice dated26/03/2018 bearing PAN: , as also letter dated15/11/2018 bearing PAN: /Company/CC-I(1)/2018-2019the notice dated 27/09/2018 bearing PAN: and theorder dated 17/12/2018 bearing PAN: /AY 2013-2014issued in furtherance thereof by the Respondent and allproceeding pursuant thereto and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently forbear theRespondent from proceeding with re-assessment under Sections 147and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the AssessmentYear 2013-2014. PRAYER IN W.P.NO.34654 OF 2018:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Callingfor the records comprised in the impugned notice dated27/03/2018 bearing PAN: , as also letter dated15/11/2018 bearing PAN: /Company/CC-I(1)/2018-2019 thenotice dated 27/09/2018 bearing PAN: and the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 17/12/2018 bearing PAN: /AY 2011-2012 issued infurtherance thereof by the Respondent and all proceedingpursuant thereto and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional and consequently forbear the Respondent fromproceeding with re-assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-2012. By this common order, all the six (6) Writ Petitions arebeing disposed. These Writ Petitions have been filed for thefollowing reliefs:- 2. For easy reference, the details of the name of thepetitioner company and the Assessment Years and impugned notices/orders are tabled as follows:- 3. By the impugned Notices, the respondent Income TaxDepartment has sought to re-open the completed assessment. Bythe impugned orders, the objections of the petitioners againstthe re-opening of the assessment vide impugned Notices issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are sought to beassailed. 4. The short point that arises for consideration in theseWrit Petition is whether the proceeding under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction since therespective petitioners had voluntarily filed CorporateInsolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the provisions of theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2018 on 28.02.2018 before the"National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai ("NCLT”) and wereadmitted on 12.03.2018/19.3.2018 and later ordered? 3. By the impugned Notices, the respondent Income TaxDepartment has sought to re-open the completed assessment. Bythe impugned orders, the objections of the petitioners againstthe re-opening of the assessment vide impugned Notices issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are sought to beassailed. 4. The short point that arises for consideration in theseWrit Petition is whether the proceeding under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction since therespective petitioners had voluntarily filed CorporateInsolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the provisions of theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2018 on 28.02.2018 before the"National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai ("NCLT”) and wereadmitted on 12.03.2018/19.3.2018 and later ordered? 5. The proceedings for reopening of the Assessment wereinitiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 duringMarch 2018 after the respective petitioners had approached theNCLT, Mumbai for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)voluntarily under Section 10 of the Insolvency and BankruptcyCode, 2016. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. These Applications filed by the petitioners were admittedby the NCLT, Mumbai on the following dates:- 7. In the above background, these Writ Petitions were filedon 26.12.2018. Interim orders came to be passed by this Court on27.12.2018 in these Writ Petitions. In term of the aforesaidinterim orders, the respondent, Income Tax Department wasallowed to proceed with the assessment but was directed to keepthe assessment in a sealed cover. 8. After the aforesaid interim order was passed, the NCLT,Mumbai approved a resolution plan on 09.06.2020. Clause 9.1.16of the approved resolution plan reads as under:- 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitsthat the issue is to be decided in the light of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd.Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657which was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee ofCreditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Guptaand Others, (2020) 8 SCC 531. 10. In support of these Writ Petitions, the learned SeniorCounsel also drew attention to the other Sections in ParagraphNos.132, 144 & 146 in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. casereferred to supra which reads as under:- "132. The appeal therefore is allowed. Theimpugned judgment and order dated 6.7.2020 passedby the Allahabad High Court is quashed and setaside. We hold and declare, that the respondentsare not entitled to recover any claims or claimany debts owed to them from the Corporate Debtoraccruing prior to the transfer date. Needless tostate, that the consequences thereof shallfollow." "144. Insofar as, the judgment authored byDeepak Roshan, J. is concerned, the learned Judgehas observed, that since the resolution plan wasapproved by NCLT on 17.4.2018, 2019 amendment toSection 31(1) of I&B Code would not apply to thesaid plan. We find, that the finding of the High Court, that the dues owed to the State Governmentand Central Government would not come within thedefinition of ‘operational debt’, is incorrect inlaw in the light of the view that is taken by us.So also the finding, that since the order of NCLTis prior to the date on which Section 31(1) of I&BCode was amended, the provisions of Section 31would not be applicable, also cannot stand in viewof the foregoing observations made by ushereinabove." "144. Insofar as, the judgment authored byDeepak Roshan, J. is concerned, the learned Judgehas observed, that since the resolution plan wasapproved by NCLT on 17.4.2018, 2019 amendment toSection 31(1) of I&B Code would not apply to thesaid plan. We find, that the finding of the High Court, that the dues owed to the State Governmentand Central Government would not come within thedefinition of ‘operational debt’, is incorrect inlaw in the light of the view that is taken by us.So also the finding, that since the order of NCLTis prior to the date on which Section 31(1) of I&BCode was amended, the provisions of Section 31would not be applicable, also cannot stand in viewof the foregoing observations made by ushereinabove." "146. Shri Gurukrishna Kumar, learned SeniorCounsel, strenuously argued, that RP/CoC had actedin a fraudulent manner. It is submitted, thatthough a notice inviting claim was required to bepublished in local newspapers where the registeredoffice of the Corporate Debtor was situated, thenotice was published in the newspaper of Kolkataedition. As per Regulation 6(2)(b) of the 2016Regulations, the said notice is required to bepublished in one English and one regional languagenewspaper with wide circulation at the location ofthe registered office and corporate office of theCorporate Debtor. Perusal of the record wouldreveal, that the notice was published in BusinessStandard and Ananda Bazar Patrika newspapers ofthe Kolkata edition, which have wide circulationin Ranchi. The corporate office of the CorporateDebtor is at Kolkata whereas its registered officeis at Ranchi. In any case, it is to be noticed,that the Forest Department of the State Governmenthad filed intervention application before NCLT aswell as NCLAT. When one of the wings of the StateGovernment has approached NCLT and NCLAT, it isdifficult to believe, that other organ of theState was not aware about the said proceedings." 11. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the decision ofthis Court in M/s.Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs. Union Of Indiaand anr. rendered in W.P.No.31090 of 2015 dated 26.04.2021 is tobe distinguished on facts particularly in the light of thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case. 12. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that therespondents are not entitled to proceed further in the light ofthe definition of claim as in Section 3(6) of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, 2016. 13. It is submitted that the Government is a “corporatedebtor” and therefore cannot proceed further as the CorporationInsolvency Resolution Plan (CIRP) has been approved by the NCLT,Mumbai and has extinguished all the claims pre-existing prior tothe approval of the aforesaid Corporation Insolvency ResolutionPlan (CIRP). 14. It is submitted that all these issues were considered bythe NCLT, Mumbai after the Insolvency Resolution Professionalwas appointed and after Committee of Creditors approved the planand since the plan has been approved by the NCLT Mumbai, therespondent Income Tax Department is precluded for proceedingsagainst the petitioner in terms of Section 31 of the Insolvencyand Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 15. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that thedecision of this Court in M/S.Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs.Union Of India another in W.P.No.31090 of 2015 dated 26.04.2021has been distinguished by the Division Bench of the KarnatakaHigh Court in Union of India Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Limitedvide order dated 27.05.2021 in W.A.No.2575 of 2018 and thereforesubmits that there is no necessity to remit the case back to theNCLT, Mumbai for examining whether the claim of the respondent,Income Tax Department was factored before approving the plan. 15. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that thedecision of this Court in M/S.Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs.Union Of India another in W.P.No.31090 of 2015 dated 26.04.2021has been distinguished by the Division Bench of the KarnatakaHigh Court in Union of India Vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Limitedvide order dated 27.05.2021 in W.A.No.2575 of 2018 and thereforesubmits that there is no necessity to remit the case back to theNCLT, Mumbai for examining whether the claim of the respondent,Income Tax Department was factored before approving the plan. 16. Appearing on behalf of the respondent, the learnedJunior Standing Counsel submits that these Writ Petitions werefiled after a Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) came into force. It is submittedthat the aforesaid Moratorium did not preclude the Income TaxDepartment either from re-opening of the concluded Assessment inthe exercise of power conferred under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961. 17. The learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondentsfurther submits that the claim of the Income Tax Department hadnot crystalized and therefore the question of extinguishment ofany claim which was yet to be articulated in an Assessment Ordercannot be said to have been extinguished. 18. The learned Junior Standing Counsel further submits thatthe Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P)Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC657 which was relied by the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner, has itself answered the issue against the petitionerin as much as the amount which was due had crystalized beforethe Resolution Plan was approved. 19. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case,only notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued and the objections of the petitioner for reopeningof the assessment had been overruled by a speaking order. It isalso submitted that the petitioners have an alternate remedyagainst the Assessment Order that has been permitted to bepassed and kept in a sealed cover in terms of the interim orderdated 27.12.2018. 20. The learned Junior Standing Counsel drew attention toSection 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 andsubmits that there is no bar under the law which inhibits oreclipses the power of the Income Tax Department to continue withthe proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 21. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned JuniorStanding Counsel for the respondent Income Tax Department.Arguments in these Writ Petitions are inspired from the decisionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P)Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC657. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.138 inGhanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss AssetReconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657, held as under:- 138. In the foregoing paragraphs, we have heldthat the 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&BCode is clarificatory and declaratory in nature andtherefore will have a retrospective operation. Assuch, when the resolution plan is approved by NCLT,the claims, which are not part of the resolutionplan, shall stand extinguished and the proceedingsrelated thereto shall stand terminated. Since thesubject-matter of the petition are the proceedings,which relate to the claims of the respondents priorto the approval of the plan, in the light of theview taken by us, the same cannot be continued.Equally the claims, which are not part of theresolution plan, shall stand extinguished. 23. The above conclusion was arrived based on the conclusionin Paragraph No.102, wherein the questions framed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court were answered as under:- Conclusion. 102. In the result, we answer the questionsframed by us as under:- 23. The above conclusion was arrived based on the conclusionin Paragraph No.102, wherein the questions framed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court were answered as under:- Conclusion. 102. In the result, we answer the questionsframed by us as under:- 102.1. That once a resolution plan is dulyapproved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as providedin the resolution plan shall stand frozen and willbe binding on the corporate debtor and itsemployees, members, creditors, including theCentral Government, any State Government or anylocal authority, guarantors and other stakeholders.On the date of approval of resolution plan by theadjudicating authority, all such claims, which arenot a part of resolution plan, shall standextinguished and no person will be entitled toinitiate or continue any proceedings in respect toa claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of theI&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in natureand therefore will be effective from the date onwhich the I&B Code has come into effect. 102.3. Consequently all the dues including thestatutory dues owed to the Central Government, anyState Government or any local authority, if notpart of the resolution plan, shall standextinguished and no proceedings in respect of suchdues for the period prior to the date on which theadjudicating authority grants its approval underSection 31 could be continued. 24. In Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss AssetReconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt also held that “The legislative intent of making theresolution plan binding on all the stakeholders after it getsthe seal of approval from the adjudicating authority upon itssatisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets therequirement as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 isthat after the approval of the resolution plan, no surpriseclaims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant.The dominant purpose is that he should start with fresh slate onthe basis of the resolution plan approved.” 25. In M/S.Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. referred to supra,this had given liberty to the petitioner therein to obtain aclarification from the NCLT as to whether the plan includedcustoms duty paid by the petitioner therein on the import underthe subject Bill of Entry therein, whereas, in the present case,the documents reveal that the income tax was not under thecontemplation of NCLT. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26. Upon admission of petitions under Section 7, there arevarious important duties and functions entrusted on theResolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors (COC).The Resolution Professional is required to issue a publicationinviting claims from all the stakeholders. He is required tocollate information and submit necessary details in theinformation memorandum. The resolution applicants are requiredto submit their plans on the basis of the details provided inthe information memorandum. The Resolution Plans undergo deepscrutiny by the Resolution Professional as well as Committee ofCreditors (COC). 27. Negotiations may be held between Committee of Creditors(COC) and the Resolution Applicant and various modifications maybe made so as to ensure that while paying part of the dues offinancial creditors as well as operational creditors and otherstakeholders, the corporate debtor is revived and is made an on-going concern. After Committee of Creditor (COC) approves theplan, the adjudicating authority is required to arrive at asubjective satisfaction that the plan conforms to therequirements as are provided in Sub-Section (2) to Section 30 ofthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 27. Negotiations may be held between Committee of Creditors(COC) and the Resolution Applicant and various modifications maybe made so as to ensure that while paying part of the dues offinancial creditors as well as operational creditors and otherstakeholders, the corporate debtor is revived and is made an on-going concern. After Committee of Creditor (COC) approves theplan, the adjudicating authority is required to arrive at asubjective satisfaction that the plan conforms to therequirements as are provided in Sub-Section (2) to Section 30 ofthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 28. Only thereafter, the adjudicating authority can grantits approval to the plan. It is at this stage that the planbecomes binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members,creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in theresolution plan. The legislative intent behind this is to freezeall the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on aclean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. 29. The Resolution Plan submitted on behalf of thepetitioners by the Insolvency Resolution Professional underSection 30(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on21.05.2019 has not contemplated any concession from the IncomeTax Department though Notices under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 had already been issued during March, 2018. 30. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan approved underSection 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) didnot contemplate tax dues under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Further, at the stage, the proceedings under 148 of the Act,1961 had not crystallized. 31. The objections of the respective petitioners were alsonot in the light of the voluntary Corporate InsolvencyResolution Proceedings initiated by the petitioners. 32. Since the proceedings under the Code were initiated bythe petitioners few days prior to the initiation of theproceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itwas incumbent for the petitioners to have ensured proper noticeto the Income Tax Department and obtained appropriate concessionin Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan. 33. That apart, claims of the Income Tax Department were notconsidered by the NCLT, Mumbai, while approving the ResolutionPlan and therefore the question of abetment of such rights ofthe Income Tax Department cannot be countenanced. 34. The provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(IBC) cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistentwith any other law in the time being in force. 35. Therefore, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plansanctioned and approved cannot impinge on the rights of theIncome Tax Department to pass any fresh Assessment Order underSection 148 read with Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 36. Therefore, the proceedings under the Insolvency andBankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) cannot be pressed into service todilute the rights of the Income Tax Department under the IncomeTax Act, 1961 to re-open the assessment under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. 37. In my view, the Income Tax Department was not precludedfrom reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act,1961. 38. Therefore, these Writ Petitions filed by thesepetitioners have to be dismissed. The Assessment Orders whichhave been passed pursuant to the interim order dated 27.12.2018are directed to be given to the respective petitioners by therespondent, within a period of thirty days from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. 39. If the petitioners are so aggrieved by such of thoseAssessment Orders, the petitioners have to work out theirAppellate remedy before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 37. In my view, the Income Tax Department was not precludedfrom reopening the assessment completed under Section 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act,1961. 38. Therefore, these Writ Petitions filed by thesepetitioners have to be dismissed. The Assessment Orders whichhave been passed pursuant to the interim order dated 27.12.2018are directed to be given to the respective petitioners by therespondent, within a period of thirty days from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. 39. If the petitioners are so aggrieved by such of thoseAssessment Orders, the petitioners have to work out theirAppellate remedy before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for filing appeal would have already expired, liberty is givento the petitioners to file such appeal before the AppellateCommissioner, within a period of thirty days from the date ofcommunication of the Assessments Orders. 40. These Writ Petitions are dismissed with theobservations. No cost. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS III) Jen //True Copy//Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD),Company Range – 1 , 6[th] Floor,Aayakar Bhavan – Wanaparthy Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – 1(1), 6[th] Floor,Aayakar Bhavan – Wanaparthy Block,121, Mahatma Gandhi Salai,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. +1cc to Mr.Allwin Godwin, Advocate, S.R.No.37056 +1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, SSC, S.R.No.36838 W.P.NOS.34668, 34671, 34649, 34654,34657 & 34664 OF 2018ANDW.M.P.NOS.40210, 40216, 40178, 40195,40185, 40221, 40176, 40184, 40207,40204, 40192, 40209 OF 2018 SMI(CO)PBS/04/07/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/