Dismissed

Praveen Kumar Pathi v. The Assistant commissioner- Income Tax

Madras HC10 Apr 2023WP/10713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking quashing of income tax assessment orders. The assessee argued reliance was placed on an un-cross-examined witness statement, but the court held assessments relied heavily on seized electronic data and that remedy lies in appeal, not writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Praveen Kumar Pathi Vs The Assistant commissioner- Income Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 10.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.10662, 10663, 10670, 10672, 10673 & 10674 of 2023

¶7

Praveen Kumar Pathi

¶8

... Petitioner in all W.P.'s

¶9

¶10

1.The Assistant Commissioner – Income Tax DC/AC Central Circle 1 (2) Investigation Building No.46 (Old No.108) Mahatma Gandhi Road

¶11

Chennai – 600 034

¶12

Tamil Nadu.

¶13

2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 IT Tower AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad – 500 004. 3.The Income Tax Officer – (Hqrs)-II Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax IT Tower AC Guards Masab Tank

¶14

Hyderabad – 500 004.

¶15

... Respondents in all W.P.'s

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Pg.No.1 of 5

¶18

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023

¶19

PRAYER in W.P.No.10713 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned assessment order in ITBA/AST/M/153C/202223/1051771812(1) dated 31.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 from the files of the First Respondent herein, quash the same.

¶20

PRAYER in W.P.No.10717 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned assessment order in ITBA/AST/S/153C/202223/1051641867(1) dated 30.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 from the files of the First Respondent herein, quash the same.

¶21

PRAYER in W.P.No.10726 of 2023: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned assessment order in ITBA/AST/S/144/202223/1051601747(1) dated 29.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 from the files of the First Respondent herein, quash the same.

¶22

in all WP's For Petitioner :Ms.Aparna Nandakumar For Respondents : -

¶23

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶24

These Writ petitions challenges orders of assessment dated 31.03.2023, 30.03.2023 and 29.03.2023 for assessment years 2017-2018, 2019-2020 and 2018-2019, passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Pg.No.2 of 5

¶27

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the assessments are based on the statement of one Shri Badri Narayana Choudhary Kota. Though extracts from the same have been provided to the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to cross examine the person, since he did not appear on 18.03.2023, when summons had been issued, based on the request of the petitioner, to both Shri Kota and to the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to cross examine him.

¶29

I am of the considered view that no legal infirmity has been made out in the impugned orders and the request for cross examination could well be made before the appellate authority too, if the petitioner believes it necessary. This is for the reason that, the respondent has in the impugned assessment, relied upon a pen-drive, that was seized in the course of search, which is stated to have contained a list of unaccounted receipts and payments.

¶30

Several of the payments were alleged to have been made to the petitioner. Thus, the argument of the petitioner that the statement of Shri Kota is the sole basis of assessment, is not correct.

¶31

Though, in the operative portion of the assessment, the officer has referred to the sworn statement recorded, the additions that have been made are stated to be extracted from the seized pen-drive and in light of these disputed facts, I am not inclined to entertain these Writ petitions.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Pg.No.3 of 5

¶34

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023

¶35

In view of the same, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶36

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

mpl Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶38

10.04.2023

¶39

To 1.The Assistant Commissioner – Income Tax DC/AC Central Circle 1 (2) Investigation Building No.46 (Old No.108) Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai – 600 034 Tamil Nadu. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 IT Tower AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad – 500 004. 3.The Income Tax Officer – (Hqrs)-II Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax IT Tower AC Guards Masab Tank Hyderabad – 500 004.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Pg.No.4 of 5

¶42

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023

¶43

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶44

mpl

¶45

W.P.Nos.10713, 10717 & 10726 of 2023 & WMP.Nos.10662, 10663, 10670, 10672, 10673 & 10674 of 2023

¶46

10.04.2023

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.5 of 5

Praveen Kumar Pathi v. The Assistant commissioner- Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Pathi v. The Assistant commissioner- 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

M/s.Roop Enterprises, Vs The Principal commissioner of Customs

A.Xavier sundarraj Vs The Regional Director of Municipal

New Prince Shri Bhavani college Vs University Grants commission

M/s.Arunnachala Impex Private Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer

K.M.Steels Vs The State Tax officer -1

M/s. Cafe Xtasi Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST and