Disposed

T.K.Rajalakshmi, v. The Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC2 Mar 2021WP/11149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a provisional property attachment order under Section 281B of the 1961 Act. Holding that the order had lost potency as over four years elapsed beyond the statutory limit, the court closed the petition without further orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed as the impugned order has lost its legal validity due to lapse of time.

T.K.Rajalakshmi, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P. No. 11149 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P. No. 9683 of 2016

¶8

T.K.Rajalakshmi, W/o.T.K.Kumara Swamy ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

¶11

Non-corporate Circle-2,

¶12

Room No.320, Wanaparthy Block,

¶13

3^rd Floor, 121, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶14

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶15

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,

¶16

121, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶17

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in PAN: ADQPR6875H/NCC2/281B/2015-16, dated 22.2.2016 attaching provisionally the petitioner's lone residential property situated in No.69/A, Star Glow, Chamiers Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivaraman For Respondents : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan

¶20

Senior Standing Counsel

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The validity of the impugned order is dated 22.02.2016, is for a period of six months from the date of the said order.

¶23

As per the proviso, the order passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order issued may be extended for a period not exceeding two years or for a period of sixty days after the date of order of the Assessment or reassessment. Since, almost four years have lapsed, the impugned order has lost its potency/vigour in terms of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 281B of the Income Tax

¶24

Act, 1961. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and no further orders are required to be passed.

¶25

Therefore, this Writ Petition is closed. The petitioner is given liberty to intimate the final outcome of the writ petition and have the order of attachment lifted. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶27

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
arb
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non-corporate Circle-2,
Room No.320, Wanaparthy Block,
3 rd Floor, 121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Sivaraman, Advocate, S.R.No.13107.
+1cc to M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.13308.
W.P. No. 11149 of 2016
and
W.M.P. No. 9683 of 2016
PL(CO)
CSR 26.03.2021

¶29

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

T.K.Rajalakshmi, v. The Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Rajalakshmi, v. The Deputy 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. Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Mehul Doshi Vs the Member Secretary

K.Eswaran, Vs the District Collector

Mr. Kassim Musthafa Vs Union of India Rep. by

M/s.Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/s.Indian Christian Outreach Vs Commissioner of Customs