Dismissed

Amar Rahman v. The Assistant Commisisioner of Income Tax

Madras HC16 Jun 2023WP/3386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an income-tax assessment order via writ, but a statutory appeal was already pending. The High Court dismissed the writ and directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre to conclude the appeal within sixteen weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the National Faceless Appeal Centre was directed to complete the hearing of Appeal No. CIT (A), Chennai 1/10168/2018-19 within sixteen weeks.

Amar Rahman Vs The Assistant Commisisioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.No.3386 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos. 3457 & 3461 of 2023

Amar Rahman

.. Petitioner

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Range – 1, Chennai.

¶11

2.The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Room No.245 – A, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶12

(R2 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 16.06.2023) .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent made in the Assessment Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/ 1014669867(1) dated 30.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2016 – 17 and quash the same so far as it relates to assessing the alleged income on transfer of shares of the petitioner in Anmol Logistics.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar Junior Standing Counsel

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenge in this petition is made to an order of assessment dated 30.12.2018 for assessment year (AY) 2018 – 2019 under the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.

¶21

The petitioner has, admittedly, filed an appeal as against the impugned order of assessment which is stated to be pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

¶22

A counter has been filed by the respondent addressing various grounds challenged in the impuged order passed. The main defence is that since the petitioner has itself availed remedy of statutory appeal, the petitioner ought not to have invoked writ jurisdiction but should have pursued the appeal instead.

¶23

On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the matter has not been disposed despite the appeal being filed as early as 2018 – 2019.

¶24

Today, Mr.B.Kumar learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, would request that a time frame be fixed for disposing the appeal being Appeal No : CIT (A), Chennai – 1/10168/2018 – 19 and that would suffice in the matter.

¶25

Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arunkumar, learned Standing Counsel, has no objection to this Court acceding to the request

¶26

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

¶27

2/5

¶28

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

¶29

made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶30

Hence while dismissing the challenge to the assessment order, since the petitioner has already challenged that order by way of first appeal, the NFAC is suo motu impleaded as R2 and Mr.Prabhu Mukund Arunkumar, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on its behalf. A direction is issued to R2 to complete the hearing of Appeal No : CIT (A), Chennai – 1/10168/2018 – 19 in accordance with law and in line with the principles of natural justice and pass orders within a period of sixteen weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks some interim direction pending appeal, which this Court is not inclined to consider in view of the pendency of the statutory appeal. Needless to say, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the appropriate administrative/appellate authority for interim protection, if it so desires.

¶32

This writ petition is dismissed with the above direction.

¶33

No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶34

16.06.2023

¶35

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶36

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

¶37

3/5

¶38

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Range – 1, Chennai.

¶41

2.The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Room No.245 – A, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶42

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

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

ssm

W.P.No.3386 of 2023

16.06.2023

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

¶50

5/5

Amar Rahman v. The Assistant Commisisioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Rahman v. The Assistant Commisisioner 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

M/S.Dishnet Wireless Limited, Vs Union of India

Bnr Exim-Proprietary Concern, Vs the Central Board of Excise

M/s.Tiruvarur consumer co-operative Vs The Registrar of Co- Operative Societies

N.Parameshwaran Vs Superintending Engineer

M.Karunanidhi Vs The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

S.Ponnusamy Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government