Madras High Court
Dhanalakshmi vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 12 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) Nos.8435 to 8446 of 2023
and 9539 to 9559 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7757, 7758, 7760, 7761, 7762, 7763, 7765,
7766, 7767, 7768, 7769, 7770, 7771, 7772, 7773, 7774, 7776,
7778, 7779 7780, 7781, 7782, 7786 and 7787 of 2023
and 6826 to 6867 of 2022
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023:
Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-1, Madurai,
Income Tax Staff Quarters Complex,
Kulamangalam Road,
Meenambalpuram, Madurai-02. .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 bearing
DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2022-23/1046092965(1) for the assessment
year 2016-17 issued by the respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
Income Tax Act and the consequential impugned demand notice issued
under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act dated 29.09.2022 bearing DIN
ITBA/PNL/S/156/2022-23/1046092868(1) and quash the same.
In all W.Ps.
For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson
For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
Senior Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
The following tabular column would show the various writ
petitions challenging the impugned order:
Sl. Writ Petition Name of the Date of the Assessment
No. (MD) No. Petitioner impugned order Year
1 8435/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2016-17
2 8436/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2021-22
3 8437/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2017-18
4 8438/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2020-21
5 8439/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2019-20
6 8440/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2019-20
7 8441/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2015-16
8 8442/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2017-18
9 8443/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2020-21
10 8444/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2021-22
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
Sl. Writ Petition Name of the Date of the Assessment
No. (MD) No. Petitioner impugned order Year
11 8445/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2018-19
12 8446/2023 Dhanalakshmi 29.09.2022 2019-20
13 9539/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2020-21
14 9540/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2021-22
15 9541/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2019-20
16 9542/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2017-18
17 9543/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2018-19
18 9544/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2021-22
19 9545/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2019-20
20 9546/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2017-18
21 9547/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2015-16
22 9548/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2016-17
23 9549/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2020-21
24 9550/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2016-17
25 9551/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2018-19
26 9552/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2021-22
27 9553/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2015-16
28 9554/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2020-21
29 9555/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2017-18
30 9556/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2016-17
31 9557/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2018-19
32 9558/2022 Dhanalakshmi 31.03.2022 2015-16
33 9559/2022 Shagitha 31.03.2022 2019-20
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
2. The common grievance of the petitioners in all the above writ
petitions is the fact that they have not been given an opportunity to
appear before the respondent to submit their case and also on account of
the fact that the time given for responding/filing their objection was very
short. The petitioners would contend that they have enough and more
evidence to show that the amounts that have been seized during the
search are all accounted for.
3. Per contra, Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel,
appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners had not
submitted the entire documentary evidences and had only submitted brief
details of their land holding, nature of crops, expenditure etc. Despite
the request of the respondent-Department, calling upon the petitioners to
produce documents and clarify the same, the petitioners had not come
forward to submit themselves for an enquiry and therefore, the
petitioners cannot now plead that they were not given an adequate
opportunity.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel would further submit that
even at the time of seizure, if these documents were available with the
petitioners, they ought to have produced proof of the same. However, the
petitioners have not come forward to produce the proof and further, even
the present writ petitions are filed much after the passing of the
impugned orders and therefore, he would seek to have the same
dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. The petitioners have produced a convenience chart giving
details of the writ petitions, the dates on which the notices have been
received and the dates when the impugned orders had come to be passed
and also given the time that has been provided to them for submitting
their reply. Perusal of the same would clearly show that very short
period of time has been given for submitting the objections.
7. This Court in W.P.(MD) No.9900 of 2021, dated 15.06.2022 was
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
dealing with the similar matter where the challenge to the impugned
order was violation of principles of natural justice and lack of affording
personal hearing by the authority and finalisation of the assessment. This
Court, after considering various judicial pronouncements in this regard,
held that the impugned assessment orders were liable to be set aside on
the ground of lack of personal hearing and short time for filing the
objections. In yet another judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.9144, 9150,
9155 and 9159 of 2022, dated 21.04.2022, a similar observation was
made and the writ petitions were disposed of.
8. In the light of the above and taking into account the fact of these
cases which ultimately show that the petitioners were not given adequate
time to submit their objections/documents and that they have not been
afforded personal hearing, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned
orders are quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh
consideration. The respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, take into account the documents produced by
them and thereafter, pass orders within a period of three months from the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
abr
To
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-1, Madurai,
Income Tax Staff Quarters Complex,
Kulamangalam Road,
Meenambalpuram, Madurai-02.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.8435 of 2023 etc., batch
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) Nos.8435 to 8446 of 2023
and 9539 to 9559 of 2022
Dated : 12.06.2023
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
