The High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal within two months.
Directions issued to the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within 2 months from receipt of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.15249 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.No.15249 of 2021 W.M.P.Nos.16138 and 16140 of 2021
Mrs.Suguna Ravichandran Wife of Late Shri.S.Ravi Chandran, D.No.26,Saraswati Nagar, Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041. .. Petitioner
Vs.
..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Assessment Order under Section 143(3) rws 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the 1st Respondent herein in DIN 20141160363 and PAN: AHCPR1681H, dated 26.12.2019 and to quash the
1/5
W.P. No.15249 of 2021
same as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, un-reasonable and without jurisdiction and perverse on account of not following the directions and guidelines issued by Hon'ble High Court from time to time in respect of escaped Income/Scrutiny Assessment and further direct the 1st respondent herein to Re-Hear and Dispose off the same considering the documents furnished by the petitioner on merits after affording on opportunity of personal hearing.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Jayaraj For Respondents : Mrs.S.Premalatha Junior Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of assessment
on the premise that the same is made in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 13.12.2019 wherein certain proposals were made with regard to the petitioner's liability with reference to capital gain on sale of a immovable property at (Raipur). The petitioner were to submit its reply on or before 17.12.2019. The petitioner filed a letter dated 17.12.2019, requesting time to submit its objections on 24.12.2019. The impugned order of assessment is made on 26.12.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner's request for adjournment though recorded in the assessment order has not been dealt with by the respondent. It was submitted that once a request for adjournment is made, a duty is cast on the assessing authority to inform the assessee whether the request is accepted or rejected,
2/5
W.P. No.15249 of 2021
failure to do so would result in violation of principles of natural justice.
dispose of the appeal pending before him against the impugned order of assessment within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3/5
W.P. No.15249 of 2021
26.02.2024
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Spp
To:
4/5
W.P. No.15249 of 2021
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Spp
W.P. No.15249 of 2021 W.M.P. Nos.16138 and 16140 of 2021
26.02.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an appeal is pending against the impugned assessment order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Singh v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶27
(1977) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Delhi Gate Auto Service Station v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.Relied on¶27
(2009) 16 SCC 766 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs.Suguna Ravichandran
The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 15(5)
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Mohammed Shaffiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
