Disposed

M/s.Shree Madan Enterprises, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC4 Mar 2016WP/8051/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted the petitioner, an income-tax assesse, to file an appeal against the original assessment order despite having approached the appellate tribunal against the rejection order. The Court directed the tribunal to entertain the appeal without raising limitation objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal against order dated 25.11.2014 before 2nd respondent within two weeks; 2nd respondent directed to entertain appeal without limitation objection and dispose on merit

M/s.Shree Madan Enterprises, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct) — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.8051 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.7164 & 7165 of 2016

¶6

M/s.Shree Madan Enterprises, rep by its Proprietor Vinod Jain, 27, Karuneegar Street, Nerkundram, Chennai – 107. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle, 38 & 39, J.J.Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Chennai (South), 3^rd Floor, PAPJM Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents

¶7

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in TIN No.33471352595/2013-14 dated 25.11.2014 and quash the same as illegal.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.Manoharan Sundaram,

¶9

Additional Government Pleader (Tax)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in TIN No.33471352595/2013-14 dated 25.11.2014 and to quash the same.

¶12

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent against the order dated 15.05.2015 with a delay of 209 days. However, the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal was preferred as against the rejection order dated

¶13

15.05.2015 instead of filing the appeal against the original assessment order dated 25.11.2014.

¶14

3.Mr.Manoharan Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner may be directed to file appeal against the order dated 25.11.2014 before the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I permit the petitioner to file an appeal as against the order dated 25.11.2014 before the 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing of the appeal, the 2^nd respondent is directed to entertain the same without raising any issue with regard to limitation and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), J.J.Nagar Assessment Circle, 38 & 39, J.J.Complex, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40.

¶17

2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner,

¶18

Chennai (South),

¶19

^rd Floor, PAPJM Building,

¶20

No.1, Greams Road,

¶21

Chennai – 6. +1 cc to The Special Government Pleader(Taxes), sr.14348 +1 cc to M/s.S.Ramanathan, Advocate, sr.13948

¶22

W.P.No.8051 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.7164 & 7165 of 2016

¶23

ug co kra 08.03.2016

¶24

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

M/s.Shree Madan Enterprises, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Shree Madan Enterprises, v. The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Sri Sathyanarayana Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Thiru. S.Velusamy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s. Sun Direct Tv Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Commissioner of

M.Nagamuthu Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing

R.Sankara Narayanan, Vs The Union of India

M/s.Atchaya Engineering Pvt., Vs The Additional Commissioner