Madras High Court
M/S.Rakindo Kovai Township vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 6 September, 2021
WA.No.2201 of 2021
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 06.9.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Writ Appeal No.2201 of 2021 & CMP.No.13930 of 2021
M/s.Rakindo Kovai Township
Private Ltd., rep.by its Chief
Executive Officer Mr.Karthik S
(cause title accepted vide order of court
date 23.7.2021 in CMP.No.10881 of
2021 by MDJ & RHJ) ...Appellant
Vs
1.The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Company Circle V(2),
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-34.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Company Circle-V(3),
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-34.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Company Circle V(3),
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-34. ...Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2201 of 2021
APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 15.6.2021 made in W.P.No.1104 of 2011.
For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar
For Respondents: Mr.S.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, JSC
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
We have heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.S.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Junior
Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondents.
2. This appeal by the appellant – assessee is directed against
the order dated 15.6.2021 passed in W.P.No.1104 of 2011, which was
disposed of along with W.P.No.1103 of 2011.
3. The appellant filed the said writ petitions challenging the
assessment order dated 30.12.2010 for the year 2007-08.
4. It is relevant to state that the order passed in W.P.No.1103 of
2011 has been affirmed by this Court in W.A.No.1791 of 2021 by
judgment dated 23.8.2021 rendered by us.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2201 of 2021
5. The challenge to the order of assessment was primarily on
the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as the
assessee did not have adequate opportunity to explain to the
Assessing Officer voluminous documents, which were presented by
the assessee at the time of assessment.
6. The assessee would state that initially, the assessment was
dealt with by a different officer and subsequently, the file got
transferred to the officer, who passed the assessment order dated
30.12.2010 and the said officer rushed through the entire matter and
without affording opportunity to the assessee, the assessment has
been completed.
7. The respondents filed a counter stating that not only notice
was issued by the earlier officer, even after the file was transferred
to the new officer, he also issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, the authorized representative appeared on
various dates and he affixed his signatures in the assessment file on
27.12.2010, which would go to show that the assessee was given
adequate opportunity.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2201 of 2021
8. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the said writ
petitions on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy.
9. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and carefully perusing the order impugned before us, we entirely
agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
10. Admittedly, the Income Tax Act is a Code by itself and it
provides for hierarchy of remedies. The contention both before the
learned Single Judge as well as before us is that the assessee did not
have adequate opportunity to explain the voluminous documents. On
the other hand, the Assessing Officer would submit that adequate
opportunity was granted and the assessee represented by their
authorized representative was heard.
11. In any event, whether appreciation of the documents was
done or not and whether there was sufficient opportunity granted to
the assessee or not are all issues, which can be canvassed before the
First Appellate Authority and we find that there is no valid reason for
the assessee to bypass a statutory appeal remedy. Therefore, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned order before us.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2201 of 2021
12. Accordingly, the above writ appeal is dismissed. The liberty
granted to the assessee by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 24
of the order impugned is sustained. The order of assessment is dated
30.12.2010 and W.P.No.1104 of 2011 was filed on 18.1.2011. Hence,
the period from 18.1.2011 till the date of receipt a certified copy of
this judgment shall be excluded while computing limitation. The
appellant is granted two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment to file an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority and if the same is filed, the appeal shall be taken
on file by the First Appellate Authority without rejecting the same on
the ground of limitation. Till then, the respondents shall not initiate
any coercive action against the appellant. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is also dismissed.
06.9.2021
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(2),
121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-V(3),
121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3),
121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.
RS
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.2201 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J
RS
WA.No.2201 of 2021 &
CMP.No.13930 of 2021
06.9.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
