Madras High Court
The Principal Officer vs Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 15 July, 2021
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.25529 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
The Principal Officer,
M/s.Vedanta Limited,
[Formerly known as M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.,]
Rep. By its Manager-Finance,
Sri Rajkumar Basak, S/o. Krishna Chandra Basak,
Sterlite Copper, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Madurai By Pass Road,
Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu 628 002. ..Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Corporate Circle 6 (2),
Room No.705, 7th Floor, New Block,
Aayakar Bhawan,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in communication bearing
No.376/CORP CIR-6(2)/2015-16 dated 06.08.2015 on the file of the
Respondent for the A.Y. 2008-09 and quash the same.
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.R.V.Easwar, (Senior Counsel)
for Mr.G.Baskar
and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas
(Senior Standing Counsel for IT)
ORDER
The writ on hand is filed questioning the legal validity of the
notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter,
referred to as, 'the Act') and the consequential proceedings issued by the
Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax, in proceedings dated 06.08.2015,
is also questioned mainly on the ground that the initiation was not made
against any 'person', as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
2.Presently, in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is Vedanta Limited,
formerly known as M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (for short
M/s.SIIL). The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner, in nut shell, narrated the background stating that on 25.06.1965,
M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (SIIL) was incorporated. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
Company filed Return of Income on 29.09.2008, for the Assessment Year
2008-2009. M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited has merged with
M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, with effect from 17.08.2013. In terms of the scheme
of amalgamation and the arrangement inter-alia between M/s.Sesa Goa
Limited and M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, as sanctioned by the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Goa Bench and Hon'ble Madras High Court,
vide orders dated 03.05.2013 and 25.07.2013. Thereafter, the said Company
namely, M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, was amalgamated with M/s.Vedanta
Limited, the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, with effect from
21.04.2015. In this back drop, the learned Senior Counsel raised a question
that whether the notice, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a
non-existing person, be validated. Admittedly, Section 148 notice was
issued to the principal officer M/s.Sesa Sterlite Industries (India) Limited.
No such company was in existence during the relevant point of time and at
any point of time. Thus, the notice was issued by the respondent to a non-
existing person and all further proceedings became invalid and thus, the
initiation of reopening proceedings itself is untenable. Secondly, the learned
Senior Counsel urged this Court that the notice was issued on the last date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
on 31.03.2015 i.e., the expiry date and the said notice under Section 148
was communicated beyond the expiry date and was received by the
petitioner only on 04.04.2015 and on 06.04.2015. In this context, it is
contended that mere issuance of notice on the last date would not validate
the notice, but the said notice issued must be despatched on the same day,
then alone it can be validated and in the present case, the notice was
acknowledged by the petitioner on 04.04.2015 and it was franked by the
postal department on 01.04.2015. Thus, the very issuance of notice is
beyond the period of limitation and on that ground also, the notice itself is
to be set aside. Even the subsequent communications sent by the respondent
were in the name of a Company, which was no longer in existence.
Therefore, for the purpose of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, no valid
notice was issued to the petitioner and thus, all further proceedings,
including the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) are invalid and
non-est in law.
3.To substantiate the said grounds raised on behalf of the
petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel solicited the attention of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India
Limited, reported in [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC). The learned Senior Counsel
made a comparison of the facts considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case cited supra. It was an appeal filed by the revenue,
questioning the order passed by the High Court. In the said case, the
following facts are considered:
“11.MSIL participated in the assessment
proceedings of the erstwhile amalgamating entity, SPIL,
through its authorized representatives and officers. This is
evident from the copies of the order sheets of the assessment
proceedings before the assessing officer for AY 2012-13. Post
amalgamation, on 30 September 2013, the Chartered
Accountants addressed a communication to the Commissioner
of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), pursuant to the notice under
Section 143(2) for an adjournment of the assessment
proceedings for AY 2012-13 until the assessment proceedings
for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 were completed. On 27
October 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
9 (1) addressed a communication to the Principal Officer, SPIL
seeking a response to a detailed questionnaire. Thereafter, on 4
September 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Circle 16(1) called for disclosure of information in the course
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
of the assessment for AY 2012-13. The communication was
addressed to:
“The Principal Officer
M/s Suzuki Power Train India Limited
(Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited).”
4.The Hon'ble Apex Court of India made an observation that the
final assessment order was passed on 31st October, 2016, in the name of
SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) and considered the fact that the final
assessment order was also issued in the name of a non-existing entity. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the arguments as advanced on behalf of
the assessee and made a finding as follows:
“31.Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions
that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was
under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact
that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an
assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of
the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an
erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved
was only a mistake curable under Section 292B. A close reading of
the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that
what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
peculiar facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What
had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice
to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the
material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that
there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to
be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the
Special Leave Petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar
facts of the case which led the court to accept the finding that the
wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which
could be corrected under Section 292B. Thus, there is no conflict
between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment (supra) on the one
hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) on the other hand.
It is of relevance to refer to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act
which reads as follows:
“292B. No return of income, assessment,
notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made
or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or
made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the
provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed
to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or
omission in such return of income, assessment, notice,
summons or other proceeding if such return of income,
assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in
substance and effect in conformity with or according to
the intent and purpose of this Act.”
In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which
jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a
non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a
procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.
In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section
170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on
death. Section 170 provides as follows:
“170. (1) Where a person carrying on any business or
profession (such person hereinafter in this section
being referred to as the predecessor) has been
succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the successor) who continues
to carry on that business or profession,—
(a) the predecessor shall be assesseed in respect of the
income of the previous year in which the succession
took place up to the date of succession;
(b) the successor shall be assesseed in respect of the
income of the previous year after the date of
succession.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the
assessment of the income of the previous year in which
the succession took place up to the date of succession
and of the previous year preceding that year shall be
made on the successor in like manner and to the same
extent as it would have been made on the predecessor,
and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may
be, apply accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
(3) When any sum payable under this section in respect
of the income of such business or profession for the
previous year in which the succession took place up to
the date of succession or for the previous year
preceding that year, assesseed on the predecessor,
cannot be recovered from him, the 99[Assessing]
Officer shall record a finding to that effect and the sum
payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable
by and recoverable from the successor and the
successor shall be entitled to recover from the
predecessor any sum so paid.
(4) Where any business or profession carried on by a
Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and
simultaneously with the succession or after the
succession there has been a partition of the joint family
property between the members or groups of members,
the tax due in respect of the income of the business or
profession succeeded to, up to the date of succession,
shall be assesseed and recovered in the manner
provided in section 171, but without prejudice to the
provisions of this section. Explanation.—For the
purposes of this section, “income” includes any gain
accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever,
of the business or profession as a result of the
succession”.
Now, in the present case, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent submitted that SPIL ceased to be an eligible assessee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
in terms of the provisions of Section 144C read with clause (b) of
sub section 15. Moreover, it has been urged that in consequence, the
final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 was beyond
limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4). For
the purposes of the present proceeding, we do not consider it
necessary to delve into that aspect of the matter having regard to the
reasons which have weighed us in the earlier part of this judgment.
..................
33.In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing
officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased
to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the
jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which
jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal
principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the
approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings
by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel
against law. This position now holds the field in view of the
judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which
dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2
November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been
followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special
Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied
on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. ”
5.In the said case also, the Assessing Officer was informed of the
amalgamating Company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was also issued only in its
name. In the present case, it is contended that the petitioner, vide letter dated
23rd September, 2013, sent an information to the Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Circle, Chennai – 64, stating that the M/s.Sterlite Industries
(India) Limited has merged with M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, with effect from
17.08.2013, in terms of the scheme of amalgamation. Therefore, the
Assessing Officer was informed about the amalgamation and the said
merger, pursuant to the orders of the Bombay High Court and Madras High
Court. In spite of the fact that the information regarding the amalgamation
was communicated to the competent authorities, again they sent the
proceedings to a non-existing person and therefore, the very initiation and
continuance in the name of a non-existing person is invalid. The notice itself
would reveal that the Company addressed was not existing on the date of
issuance and during the year 2015, the Company was named as M/s.Vedanta
Limited.
6.The learned Senior Counsel reiterated, by stating that once the
notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid in eye of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
law, then all further proceedings consequentially became invalid. Since, in
the present case, the notice itself is not valid with reference to the provisions
of the Income Tax Act, as it was communicated to a non-existing person and
even after the communication of the petitioner, the mistake was not
corrected as such a mistake is substantive, the error cannot be fit in with the
provisions of Section 292 B of the Act. The scope of Section 292 B of the
Act is to be confined only to correct the mistakes. However, in the present
case, the notice was issued addressing to a non-existing person and the
petitioner is no way connected with the notice and therefore, such a
substantive error committed cannot be cured under the provisions of Section
292 B of the Act. The corrigendum issued under Section 292 B of the Act
cannot stand on its legs in view of the fact that it was not a mere error or
typographical mistake that the notice was issued to a non-existing person
repeatedly and at no point of time, the respondent has initiated steps to issue
proper proceedings.
7.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent seriously raised an objection with reference to the contentions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
raised by the petitioner by holding that the final assessment order has been
passed in this case. Once a final assessment order is passed, the petitioner
has to exhaust the statutory appeal remedies as contemplated under the
Income Tax Act. Instead of raising all these grounds before the appellate
authority, the Writ Petition is filed and therefore, the Writ Petition itself is
not entertainable. The learned Senior Standing Counsel relied on Section
170 of the Act, by stating that once the Company is amalgamated and the
name is changed, thereafter, the liability also is to be shifted to the
amalgamated Company and the notice sent to the erst-while Company
cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that there was an error which
was corrected subsequently by the department through subsequent letters
and therefore, the mistakes/error/typographical errors are rectifiable under
Section 292 B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the ingredients
under Section 170 as well as Section 292 B would be squarely applicable
and the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
8.The learned Senior Standing Counsel further made a submission
that in the present case, the petitioner was frequently changing their name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
on many occasions and the place of the registered office, that is to say, from
Tuticorin, Chennai, Goa and to Delhi. Therefore, the Income Tax
department found it very difficult to serve the notices on some occasions
and therefore, such mistakes if at all any, cannot be a ground to invalidate
the entire reopening proceedings, which would otherwise cause greater
injury to the revenue. It is pertinent to note that while changing the
registered office, the name of the Company is also changed on several
occasions. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
in reply, contended that Section 170 is not applicable with reference to the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand. If a notice was issued to an
erst-while Company, the subsequent Company which has taken over the
Company can be made liable and in the present case, the point raised is that
the notice impugned was issued to a non-existing person and therefore,
application of Section 170 is improper.
9.Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
purpose and object of the Act plays a pivotal role in the matter of
interpreting certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. Mere procedural
mistakes which is corrected or errors, which all are rectifiable, cannot be a
ground to vitiate the entire proceedings which would undoubtedly and
certainly defeat the very purpose and object of the Taxation law. Let us now
consider the scope of Section 292 B, which contemplates Return of Income,
etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. The very provision is intended to
validate the Return of Income, etc., wherein certain mistakes or errors are
committed. The Section stipulates "No Return of Income, assessment,
notice, summons or other proceedings, furnished or made or issued or taken
or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance
of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be
invalid, merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return
of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings, if such return
of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in
substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent or purpose
of this Act". The provision stipulates that the intent and purpose of the Act
is also to be taken note of. The mistake, defect or omission in such return of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is also not a
ground. Therefore, this Court has to consider whether the address stated in
the impugned notice in this Writ Petition can be considered as a mistake or
otherwise. Admittedly, the petitioner has changed their names frequently, so
also the place of registered office. In this context, there is a possibility of
error, even if a letter is communicated to the respondent, by the petitioner,
regarding change of name and amalgamation. The impugned notice is
addressed to the Principal Officer, M/s. Sesa Sterlite Industries Limited.
However, the name of the petitioner Company, prior to 2013, was
M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and subsequently, it was merged with
M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited. On close reading of the names, it was originally
M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and subsequently, it was M/s.Sesa
Goa Limited and thereafter, M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited and finally,
M/s.Vedanta Limited. Considering the first three names, the words are
relatively closer and the respondent has erroneously stated as M/s.Sesa
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, instead of M/s.Sterlite Industries (India)
Limited. The subsequent name of 'Sesa' was added by mistake. Further the
word 'Sesa' is not alien to the petitioner Company. The word 'Sesa' is used
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
while changing the name of the Company. As pointed out earlier,
M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited was merged and renamed as M/s.Sesa
Goa Limited and thereafter, M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited. As the name 'Sesa'
was not alien to the petitioner Company, it is to be construed that it is a
bonofide mistake committed by the Assessing Officer, while printing the
address of the petitioner Company. However, as rightly pointed out by the
respondent, the Personal Account Number was one and the same. The
Personal Account Number was accepted by the petitioner Company. They
have responded to all those letters and the corrigendum was issued and
finally, the Assessing Officer found that due to the frequent change, the
department also committed certain mistakes in addressing the petitioner and
finally, it was corrected and proceedings were continued. In letter dated
06.08.2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has considered all
these mistakes and made a finding that the name of the Company changed
many times, but Permanent Account Number issued has not been changed
and the same is admitted by the petitioner. On merger, it is the responsibility
of the new Company to address any tax arrears or other litigation existing in
the name of the previous Company. The taxation department and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
authorized signatory of the Company would be well aware of the facts that it
is their Personal Account Number and the name of the addressee as per
Personal Account Number is M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. As the
assessee has changed the name of the Company many times, there was
confusion in the name of the assessee, so the name of the Company was
inadvertently quoted as M/s.Sesa Sterlite Industries (India) Limited in both
notice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2015 and in corrigendum, dated
01.04.2013.
10.This Court has to consider the possible mistakes which would
not affect the purpose and object of the proceedings, more specifically,
under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, as the department is normally
dealing with large number of files. Human error is common. However, such
error affecting the very provision or otherwise alone is to be invalidated and
every mistake or certain omissions cannot be construed as invalid for the
purpose of continuance of the proceedings under the Income Tax Act. In the
present case, admittedly, the Personal Account Number, all along, was being
mentioned correctly. Under these circumstances, yet another possibility is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
also to be considered. The assessees, in view of change of names and
registered office, probably would have filed the return of income in the
changed name and the original name may be maintained in the PAN records.
In other words, in the PAN records, sometimes, the original name is
mentioned, as the assessee has to submit a separate application for change
of name in the PAN records. However, if the Personal Account Number is
correctly mentioned, then it indicates the person against whom such
proceedings are initiated and thus, such errors are to be neglected and is to
be corrected for the purpose of continuing the proceedings. This is
happening on many occasions. Some time, the address in the Personal
Account Number and the address in the return of income may vary on
account of change of name and office. Under those circumstances, the
Income Tax Department always verified the Personal Account Number and
processed the return of income by following the procedures contemplated.
These mistakes are quite common in the Income Tax Department. Thus, the
verifications are done mostly with reference to the Permanent Account
Number and in the event of no change in the Permanent Account Number,
then it is to be construed that the notice was issued to the person to whom it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
is intended to be issued. Issuance is one aspect of the matter and issued to
whom it is intended to be issued is to be considered by the Court for the
purpose of application of Section 292 B of the Income Tax Act. If the notice
was communicated to an unknown person, who is alien to the assessee, then
as rightly pointed out, the benefit of Section 292 B cannot be held in favour
of the revenue. However, if the notice was intended to be issued to a person
to whom it is to be issued and such person also acknowledged the
Permanent Account Number, which is rightly mentioned, and responded to
the letters and notices issued by the Income Tax Department, then there is
no reason to disbelieve the contentions raised on behalf of the revenue, as
the name mentioned wrongly is a mistake to be fit in with the provisions of
Section 292 B of the Income Tax Act.
11.It is a settled principle that non-quoting of provision or
mistake/error in address of a person to whom it is to be served, would not
vitiate the entire proceedings in the eye of law. This being the settled
principles, the nature of mistake committed as well as other mitigating
factors, are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
ground raised by the petitioner.
12.With reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, relied on by the petitioner, in the case of Principle Commissioner
of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically
considered that “the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of
the non-existing or SPIL and that the final assessment order, which was also
issued in the name of non-existing entity". The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further considered the scope of Section 292 B, regarding the scope of
curability of the mistake. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the concluding
paragraph, made the following observations:
“ 33.In the present case, despite the fact that the
assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company
having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of
amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its
name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was
fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the
amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme
of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the
appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
against law................”
13. As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, admittedly,
the notice under Section 148 was issued in a wrong name. However, close
reading of the name of the Company would reveal that the first word 'Sesa'
is not alien to the petitioner Company and the very same word is used by the
petitioner subsequently. The said mistake was pointed out by the petitioner.
The department issued a corrigendum, wherein again they have committed a
mistake. The reason stated by the department is that the Company is having
the habit of frequently changing their names as well as their registered
office and the said conduct of the Company created confusion in the
department and therefore, the mistake cannot be a ground to vitiate the
entire proceedings. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has
taken steps to correct the mistake and in letter dated 06.08.2015, the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, narrated the entire facts and circumstances
for the mistake earlier committed by the department and thereafter, the
proceedings were conducted in the correct name of the petitioner and the
final assessment order was passed. The petitioner was provided with an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
opportunity to defend their case in the manner prescribed and there is no
dispute between the parties that the assessment order was passed by
following the procedures contemplated. Therefore, the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra may not have any
direct application with reference to certain facts which all are specifically
established in the present case. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in clear terms
held that the application of Section 170 or 292 B must be applied with
reference to the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore, the
mistake whether can be fit in with the provisions or not is to be considered
on facts.
14.This Court is of the considered opinion that, in the present
case, the proceedings were continued and the assessment order has already
been passed and subsequently, the Writ Petitions are filled, challenging the
draft assessment order as well as the final assessment order. In view of the
fact that the mistake crept in at the initial stage was identified by the
department and subsequently corrected and the proceedings thereafter were
continued in the name of the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
the process of reassessment already completed and it is for the petitioner to
redress their grievances, if any exist, by preferring an appeal, in the manner
prescribed under the Act. In fine, this Court do not find any infirmity or
perversity as such, for the purpose of undoing the processes undertaken
already, pursuant to the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the
Act and consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.07.2021
gsa
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Corporate Circle 6 (2),
Room No.705, 7th Floor, New Block,
Aayakar Bhawan,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No.25529 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsa
W.P.No.25529 of 2015
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
