Dismissed

M/S.Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WA/2201/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an Income Tax assessment order. It held that the Income Tax Act provides a statutory appeal remedy for issues regarding document appreciation and natural justice, requiring the assessee to bypass writ jurisdiction to file a first appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; liberty granted to file first appeal within two weeks without limitation bar; respondents restrained from coercive action pending appeal.

M/S.Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 06.9.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

Writ Appeal No.2201 of 2021 & CMP.No.13930 of 2021

¶7

M/s.Rakindo Kovai Township
Private Ltd., rep.by its Chief
Executive Officer Mr.Karthik S

¶8

(cause title accepted vide order of court
date 23.7.2021 in CMP.No.10881 of
2021 by MDJ & RHJ)...Appellant

¶9

Vs

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner of
 Income Tax, Company Circle V(2),
 121, Nungambakkam High Road,
 Chennai-34.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner of
 Income Tax, Company Circle-V(3),
 121, Nungambakkam High Road,
 Chennai-34.

¶12

3.The Deputy Commissioner of
 Income Tax, Company Circle V(3),
 121, Nungambakkam High Road,
 Chennai-34....Respondents

¶13

APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.6.2021 made in W.P.No.1104 of 2011.

¶14

Prayer in WP.1104/2011: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, Praying for the issue of writs of
certiorari, to call for the records in the proceedings
Nos.AADCR8015N & AADCR5365H dated 30.12.2010 relating to the
Asssessment year 2008-2009 on the file of the 1st respondent and
quash the same.

¶15

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

¶16

 For Appellant : Mr.G.Baskar

¶17

 For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, JSC

¶18

Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

¶19

We have heard Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.S.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Junior
Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondents.

¶20

2. This appeal by the appellant – assessee is directed
against the order dated 15.6.2021 passed in W.P.No.1104 of 2011,
which was disposed of along with W.P.No.1103 of 2011.

¶21

3. The appellant filed the said writ petitions challenging
the assessment order dated 30.12.2010 for the year 2007-08.

¶22

4. It is relevant to state that the order passed in
W.P.No.1103 of 2011 has been affirmed by this Court in
W.A.No.1791 of 2021 by judgment dated 23.8.2021 rendered by us.

¶23

5. The challenge to the order of assessment was primarily on
the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as
the assessee did not have adequate opportunity to explain to the
Assessing Officer voluminous documents, which were presented by
the assessee at the time of assessment.

¶24

6. The assessee would state that initially, the assessment
was dealt with by a different officer and subsequently, the file
got transferred to the officer, who passed the assessment order
dated 30.12.2010 and the said officer rushed through the entire
matter and without affording opportunity to the assessee, the
assessment has been completed.

¶25

7. The respondents filed a counter stating that not only
notice was issued by the earlier officer, even after the file
was transferred to the new officer, he also issued a notice under
Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authorized
representative appeared on various dates and he affixed his
signatures in the assessment file on 27.12.2010, which would go
to show that the assessee was given adequate opportunity.

¶26

8. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the said writ

¶27

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

¶28

petitions on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy.

¶29

9. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and carefully perusing the order impugned before us, we
entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

10. Admittedly, the Income Tax Act is a Code by itself and
it provides for hierarchy of remedies. The contention both before
the learned Single Judge as well as before us is that the
assessee did not have adequate opportunity to explain the
voluminous documents. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer
would submit that adequate opportunity was granted and the
assessee represented by their authorized representative was
heard.

¶31

11. In any event, whether appreciation of the documents was
done or not and whether there was sufficient opportunity granted
to the assessee or not are all issues, which can be canvassed
before the First Appellate Authority and we find that there is no
valid reason for the assessee to bypass a statutory appeal
remedy. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order before us.

¶32

12. Accordingly, the above writ appeal is dismissed. The
liberty granted to the assessee by the learned Single Judge in
paragraph 24 of the order impugned is sustained. The order of
assessment is dated 30.12.2010 and W.P.No.1104 of 2011 was filed
on 18.1.2011. Hence, the period from 18.1.2011 till the date of
receipt a certified copy of this judgment shall be excluded while
computing limitation. The appellant is granted two weeks' time
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment to
file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and if the
same is filed, the appeal shall be taken on file by the First
Appellate Authority without rejecting the same on the ground of
limitation. Till then, the respondents shall not initiate any
coercive action against the appellant. No costs. Consequently,
the connected CMP is also dismissed.

¶33

 Sd/-

¶34

 Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

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

¶38

RS
To

¶39

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(2), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶40

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-V(3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶41

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.

¶42

+1cc to M/s.Hema Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.44813

¶43

WA.No.2201 of 2021 &
 CMP.No.13930 of 2021

¶44

LN(CO)
SB(27/09/2021)

¶45

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

M/S.Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Rakindo Kovai Township Ltd. v. Assistant 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

N. Selvaraj Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Issac Mathai Nooranal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Samuel Mathai Nooranal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Chaganlal Lalji Aswin

V.Karunakaran Vs Panindra Reddy

S.Nagarathinam Vs Kumar Jayanth IAS