Disposed

S.Rahamatulla Baig v. the Commissioner of Income

Madras HC12 Jul 2017WP/19445/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for disposal of Income Tax Appeals as expeditiously as possible and continued stay of Section 226(3) notices. The Court observed that the matters likely have been disposed of and directed the petitioner to pursue available remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue remedies if appeals pending; Miscellaneous Petitions to close if appeals disposed.

S.Rahamatulla Baig Vs the Commissioner of Income — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.07.2017 Coram

¶3

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

¶4

Writ Petition Nos.19445 to 19447 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.23390 to 23392 of 2004

¶5

S.Rahamatulla Baig ...Petitioner in all W.Ps.

¶6

Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII,
Chennai - 600 034.

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Pondicherry.

¶8

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward I (1),
Villupuram ...Respondents1 to 3 in all
W.Ps.

¶9

Prayer in all W.Ps.

¶10

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the Appeals filed by the petitioner in I.T.A.Nos.353 to 355 of 2004, as expeditiously as possible against the order passed by the third respondent for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-2002, dated 29.03.2004, under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas

¶13

Senior Standing Counsel & Mr.A.N.Jayaprathap Government Advocate (T) COMMON O R D E R

¶14

Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, the learned Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.A.N.Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

¶15

The petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions, seeking for a direction upon the first respondent to dispose of the

¶16

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

¶17

Appeals filed by him, in I.T.A.Nos.353 to 355 of 2004, as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

The Appeals are filed against the assessment orders passed by the third respondent for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2001-2002, dated 29.03.2004, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T.Act). Pending disposal of the Appeals, the petitioner has sought for a stay of the notices issued under Section 226 (3) of the I.T. Act.

¶19

At the time, when the Writ Petitions were admitted, order of interim stay was granted. The counsels on either side are unable to report as to whether the Appeals filed by the petitioner before the first respondent have been disposed or not. In any event, since the Appeals are of the year 2004, by now, definitely, the Appeals would have been disposed of. In the event, if the same have not been disposed or, order of stay granted in the year, 2004, shall continue to operate till the disposal of the Appeals. On the other hand, if the Appeals have already been disposed of, it is open to the petitioner to workout their remedies in accordance with law, and in that case, the Miscellaneous Petitions, wherein, stay was granted shall stand closed.

¶20

Sd/ASST. REGISTRAR

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST. REGISTRAR

¶22

To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, Chennai - 600 034.

¶23

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pondicherry.

¶24

1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (1), Villupuram.

¶25

+1 CC to Mr. Mr.S.Rajasekar Advocate SR.NO.48502/2017 +1 CC to Mr. A.P.Srinivas Advocate SR.NO.48956/17

¶26

Writ Petition Nos.19445 to 19447 of 2004 (3 cases)

¶27

VGI(CO) VC (31/10/2017)

¶28

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

S.Rahamatulla Baig v. the Commissioner of Income

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rahamatulla Baig v. the Commissioner of Income

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

Tvl.Dhanya Sree Precision Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.R.a.Leather Fashion, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Kcs Nadar Memorial Education Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S Tectonics Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Aircel Cellular Ltd., Vs Central Board of Excise and

Auromandal Papers and Boards Vs General Manager