Allowed

Mahindra Residential v. The Principal Commissioner of

Madras HC28 Mar 2016WP/8232/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a conditional stay order imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax without providing reasons. The High Court set aside the order due to lack of reasoning, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26/2/2016 set aside and matter remanded to the first respondent to pass a reasoned order within four weeks after personal hearing.

Mahindra Residential Vs The Principal Commissioner of — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28/3/2016

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

Writ Petition No.8232 of 2016

¶6

¶7

WMP.NOS.7314 & 7315/16

¶8

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd a Company registered under the Companies Act rep. By its Authorized Signatory Mr.R.Eswaran having Office at Administrative Block Central Avenue Mahindra World City Mahindra World City Sub (PO) Chengalpet Taluk Kancheepuram 603 004. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax: Chennai - 4 301 Wanaparthy Block Ayakar Bhavan 121 Mahathma Gandhi Road Chennai 34. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals – VIII) 121 Mahathma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34.

¶9

The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 4 (1) Main Building 4^th Floor, Room No.429, 121 Mahathma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the proceedings in C.No.STAY PETITION/Pr.CIT-4/201516 dated 26/2/2016 and quash the same.

¶11

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

¶12

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶13

For respondents ... Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda

Standing Counsel.

O R D E R

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

Heard Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶19

petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶20

This writ petition has been filed, praying to quash the order passed by the third respondent in C.No.STAY PETITION/Pr.CIT-4/2015-16, dated 26/2/2016.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that they are engaged in the business of providing infrastructure facilities in the IT Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Mahindra World City at Chengalpet. Pursuant to the Letter of Approval, dated 25/4/2008, issued by the Government of India, the petitioner started its business activities of Co-Developer in SEZ. Further, according to the petitioner, they are entitled to claim deductions in respect of its income, as provided under Section 80-IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner being the co-developer is entitled for exemption for a period of ten consecutive years out of 15 assessment years.

¶22

On 17/4/2013, the petitioner filed its revised return of income for the assessment year 2012 – 13, under Section 80 IAB of the Income Tax Act. On 31/3/2015, the third respondent passed an order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, disallowing the claim of deduction, under Section 80 IAB of the Income Tax Act, for a sum of Rs.1,22,19,398/-. On 22/4/2015, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal, before the second respondent, challenging the order of assessment, dated 31/3/2015, passed by the third respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed a stay petition before the third respondent, under Section 220 sub-clause (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By an order dated 24/4/2015, the third respondent rejected the application for stay, without considering the circular No.95 dated 21/8/1969.

¶23

The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14239/2015 before this Court, challenging the order of

¶24

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

¶25

rejection of stay by the third respondent. By an order dated 5/1/2016, this Court disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to move an application for stay before the jurisdictional Commissioner and directed the authorities not to take any cohesive steps till the disposal of the stay petition. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed a stay petition before the jurisdictional Commissioner. By an order dated 26/2/2016, the first respondent passed an order of conditional stay, remitting 50% of the demand amount in three instalments. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

¶26

On a perusal of the impugned order dated 26/2/2016, it could be seen that the first respondent had passed an order without giving any reasons for calling upon the petitioner to make payment of 50% of the demand.

¶27

Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, contended that the order passed by the first respondent is just and proper and in accordance with law.

¶28

Since the first respondent has not given any reasons in calling upon the petitioner to pay 50% of the demand amount, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration.

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 26/2/2016. The first respondent is directed to decide the matter afresh, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also taking into consideration the Circular No.95, dated 21/8/1969 and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would appear before the first respondent on 15/4/2016.

¶31

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

mvs.

Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

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

¶38

¶39

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax:
Chennai - 4
301 Wanaparthy Block,
Ayakar Bhavan,
121 Mahathma Gandhi Road,
Chennai 34.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Appeals – VIII),
121 Mahathma Gandhi Road,
Chennai 34.
3. The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward 4 (1) Main Building,
4 th Floor, Room No.429,
121 Mahathma Gandhi Road,
Chennai 34.
+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate Sr 19650
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, Advocate Sr 19219
KR/11/4/16
W.P.No.8232 of 2016

¶40

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

Mahindra Residential v. The Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra Residential v. The Principal Commissioner of

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

M/s.Sri Karunya Hosiery Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

S.Govindaraj, Vs The Tamilnadu State Marketing

Tvl.Eswari Agencies Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M.Chellappan, Vs The State Transport Authority

G.Jothiramalingam, Vs The District Collector

S.Umapathy Vs Manickam