Allowed

M. Sumathy v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC22 Apr 2016WP/14779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to acknowledge her filed returns and delete a duplicate return bearing the same PAN number incorrectly allotted to another person, based on an admission by the department.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd respondent to issue acknowledgement and delete the duplicate return filed by another person with the same PAN number.

M. Sumathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.14779 of 2016

¶6

M. Sumathy .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1 The Commissioner of Income Tax- Computer operations

¶9

Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor

¶10

No.121, M.G. Road

¶11

Nungambakkam

¶12

Chennai 600 034

¶13

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

¶14

Non Corporate Ward 12 (1)

¶15

No. 611, Anna Salai

¶16

Kannamai Building, 4th Floor

¶17

Chennai 600 006

¶18

3 The Deputy Director (Systems)

¶19

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin & Co)

¶20

Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor

¶21

No.121, M.G. Road Nungambakkam

¶22

Chennai 600 034

¶23

4 The Deputy Director (Systems)

¶24

O/o The commissioner of Income Tax

¶25

(Administration & Computer Operations)

¶26

Ground & 2nd Floor C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 560 001

¶27

5 The Income Tax Officer

¶28

Non Corporate Ward 12 (4)

¶29

No.611, Anna Salai

¶30

Kannamai Building, 4th Floor

¶31

Chennai 600 006

¶32

6 The Income Tax Officer 12(4) Ward - 13(2) Room No.320 3rd floor South Wing, HMT Bhavan Bellary Road Ganganahalli Bangalore 560 032 .. Respondents

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to issue necessary acknowledgement under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act treating the hard copy of the returns dated 30.09.2015 for the assessment year 2015-2016 enclosed along with the communication dated 08.02.2016 of the Petitioners Chartered Accountant has been filed on 30.09.2015 and also consequentially delete the return in the records of the Income Tax Department filed by another person in PAN ABYPS2902A of the Assessee for the assessment year 2015-2016.

¶35

For Petitioners :Dr.Anita Sumanth For Respondents :Mr.P.Rajkumar Jhabak – R1 & R6 for Mr.Promod Kumar Chopda Mr.V.Pushpa – for R2 & R5 for MR.M.Swaminathan Mr.J.Narayanasamy – for R3 & R4 ORDER

¶36

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue necessary acknowledgement under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act treating the hard copy of the returns dated 30.09.2015 for the assessment year 2015-2016 enclosed along with the communication dated 08.02.2016 of the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, which has been filed on 30.09.2015 and also consequentially delete the return in the records of the Income Tax Department filed by another person in PAN No. ABYPS 2902A of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-2016.

¶37

Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 6^th respondent had issued a letter dated 5.11.2015 to one Smt. M.Sumathy, Proprietrix, M/s.Megan Law Firm, No.11, Lalithapuram Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014, stating that on verification it was found that the PAN No. ABYPS 2902A pertains to her and that she is the actual owner of the Pan Number. Further, it has been stated in the said letter that subsequently another person viz., Smt.Ethiraj Sumathy, whose date of birth is 25.08.1967 and father's name is Ethiraj applied for the PAN and due to similarities in core fields like name, date of birth, father's name, inadvertently, the same PAN No. ABYPS 2902A has been sent to her. Relying upon the said letter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has received a communication dated 03.09.2015 from the 6^th respondent calling

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

upon her to be present in the office of the 6^th respondent with regard to the returns filed by her on-line on 19.02.2015. The petitioner sent a reply dated 15.10.2015 to the 6^th respondent stating the above facts, even though the 6^th respondent is not her Assessing Officer. After due examination, vide letter dated 5.11.2015, the 6^th respondent sent a response to the petitioner by letter dated 6.10.2015 stating that PAN No. ABYPS 2902A belongs to her and has been wrongly allotted to some other person and the said person has been advised to stop using the above said Pan Number. The petitioner also gave a representation to the respondent through her Charted Accountant. Further, the petitioner requested the 2^nd respondent to accept her returns for the assessment year 2015-2016, however, till date, petitioner's request has not been adhered to by the respondents.

¶40

The respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the admitted position vide letter of the 6^th respondent dated 5.11.2015, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition can be allowed.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the letter dated 5.11.2015 sent by the 6^th respondent, I am of the view that the relief sought for in the writ petition can be allowed.

¶42

Accordingly, I direct the 2^nd respondent to issue necessary acknowledgement under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act treating the hard copy of the returns dated 30.09.2015 for the assessment year 2015-2016 enclosed along with the communication dated 08.02.2016 of the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, which has been filed on 30.09.2015 and consequentially direct the 2^nd respondent to delete the return in the records of the Income Tax Department filed by another person in PAN No.ABYPS 2902A of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-2016.

¶43

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶48

¶49

1 The Commissioner of Income Tax- Computer operations Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor

¶50

No.121, M.G. Road

¶51

Nungambakkam

¶52

Chennai 600 034

¶53

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Ward 12 (1)

¶54

No. 611, Anna Salai

¶55

Kannamai Building, 4th Floor

¶56

Chennai 600 006

¶57

3 The Deputy Director (Systems) O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin & Co)

¶58

Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor

¶59

No.121, M.G. Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034

¶60

4 The Deputy Director (Systems)

¶61

O/o The commissioner of Income Tax

¶62

(Administration & Computer Operations)

¶63

Ground & 2nd Floor C.R. Building Queens Road

¶64

Bangalore 560 001

¶65

5 The Income Tax Officer

¶66

Non Corporate Ward 12 (4)

¶67

No.611, Anna Salai

¶68

Kannamai Building, 4th Floor Chennai 600 006

¶69

6 The Income Tax Officer

¶70

12(4) Ward - 13(2) Room No.320 3rd floor

¶71

South Wing, HMT Bhavan Bellary Road

¶72

Ganganahalli Bangalore 560 032

¶73

+1cc to M/S.J.Narayanasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.25253

¶74

+1cc to M/S.R.Gopinath, Advocate, S.R.No.25248 +1cc to M/S.T.Pramodkumar, Advocate S.R.No.25208

¶75

W.P.No.14779 of 2016

¶76

ak[co] srg 26/04/2016

¶77

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Sumathy v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sumathy v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vaithilingam Vs The Regional Transport

M/s.Venu Residency, Vs The Joint Commissioner

M/s.Sri Kannika Parameswari Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Mahalaxmi Inn Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

C.Ravindran, Vs Secretary, Regional Transport

S.a.Kamleshkumar Amarchand Vs The Deputy Commissioner of