Disposed

A.L.Gayathri v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC14 Mar 2016WP/9448/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge directed the CIT(Appeals)-14 and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to decide pending appeals on merits by a specific timeline. The second respondent was directed to maintain status quo during this period. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to decide appeals on merits within 2 weeks (extended to 8 weeks later) and 2nd respondent to maintain status quo.

A.L.Gayathri Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.Nos.9448 to 9453 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.8407 to 8418 of 2016

¶6

A.L.Gayathri ... Petitioner in all W.Ps

¶7

Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14, Room No.217, 2^nd Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle-III, Annexe Building, IV Floor, Room No.407, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 34. ... Respondents in all W.Ps

¶8

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the order bearing F.No.SP/CIT(A)14/2015-16 dated 29.02.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai-34 and consequently forbear the respondents from initiating any coercive action for recovery of scrutiny demand for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-2010, 20102011, 2011-12, 2010-2011 till the disposal of the Appeal Nos.51 to 56/2014-2015 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai-34.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi (in all W.Ps) For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, (in all W.Ps) Standing Counsel

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petitions to issue writs of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the orders dated 29.02.2016 on the file of the 1^st

¶11

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

¶12

respondent and consequently forbear the respondents from initiating any coercive action for recovery of scrutiny demand for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-2010, 2011-12, 2010-2011 till the disposal of the Appeal Nos.51 to 56/2014-2015 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent.

¶13

2.Though the petitioner had challenged the orders dated 29.02.2016, Mr.Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appeals preferred by the petitioner are coming up for hearing on 16.03.2016 and it would be suffice to direct the 1^st respondent to decide the appeals and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶14

3.Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel taking notice for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the stay petitions filed by the petitioner and that there is no merit in the Writ Petitions. However, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the respondents are not having any objection for early disposal of the appeals.

¶15

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to a direction being given to the 1^st respondent for the disposal of the appeals, I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by giving such a direction. Accordingly, I direct the 1^st respondent to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an order of stay may be granted for the reason that if stay is not granted, the appeals pending before the 1^st respondent would become infructuous.

¶17

6.In view of the same, the 2^nd respondent is directed to maintain status quo for a period of two weeks (i.e) till the disposal of the appeals.

¶18

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

¶19

7.With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

¶21

14.03.2016

¶22

This petition having been posted on this day under the caption for being mentioned in pursuance of the order of this court dated 14.03.2016 and made herein in presence of the aforesaid advocate for the petitioner and Ms.V.Pushpa, for Mr.M. Swaminathan standing counsel on behalf of the respondents herein this court made the following order;

¶23

At the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the matter is listed today under the caption "For Being mentioned"

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at the time of disposal of the writ petitions, this Court had directed the first respondent to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law, and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the appeals could not be disposed of within the time stipulated by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought extension of time for disposal of the appeals.

¶25

Ms.V.Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that Eight weeks time may be extended for the disposal of appeals.

¶26

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to decide the appeals on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, within a period of Eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeals. In other aspects, the order, dated 14.03.2016 shall remain unaltered.

¶27

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

¶28

The Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both sides.

¶29

29.03.2016

¶30

tsvn

¶31

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
dt. 07.04.2016
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14,
Room No.217, 2 nd Floor,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai -34.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Business Circle-III, Annexe Building,
IV Floor, Room No.407,
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 34.
+1 ccs to Mr.Swaminathan, Advocate sr.19618
+1 cc to Mr.Gupta Ravi, Advocate sr.19464

¶32

W.P.Nos.9448 to 9453 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.8407 to 8418 of 2016

¶33

mg(CO) srg(14/03/2016) EU 07.04.16

¶34

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

A.L.Gayathri v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.L.Gayathri 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

Hotel Riga Residency Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl.Camera Citi Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl. Rasi Tax (In) P Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

R.Uma, Vs The Transport Commissioner

A.Kani, Vs The Transport Commissioner

R.Ganesan Vs The Transport Commissioner