Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Madras High Court

Sri A.Kodanda Rami Reddy vs The Income Tax Officer on 10 November, 2014

Author: T.S.Sivagnanam

Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.33938 to 33940 of 2013 
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 (3 MPs)
Sri A.Kodanda Rami Reddy	   	..  Petitioner in all WPs

Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Media Ward I,
Chennai  600 034.				             .. Respondents in all WPs

	Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein in the impugned proceedings issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 PAN: AACPR6556Q/2013-14 dated 19.08.2013 & 08.11.2013 respectively, quash the same and direct the respondent not to proceed further towards the recovery of dues arising out of assessment order dated 29.12.2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 against which a statutory appeal and a stay petition is pending before this Court.

			For Petitioner  	:  M/s.K.Vaitheeswaran
			in all WPs

			For Respondents	:  Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopra
			in all WPs	             

COMMON ORDER
	

In all these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 19.08.2013 and 08.11.2013 by which the petitioner has been directed to remit the entire payment pursuant to the order of assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rejected as against which the petitioner has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending. However, the case number has not been furnished in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions. These writ petitions were listed for admission on 13.12.2013. Even on the said date, the learned Judge of this Court who heard the case neither issued notice to the respondent nor admitted the writ petitions but adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner to move before the Hon'ble Division Bench for protection.

2. It is nearly one year since the order has been passed. Even now, the petitioner would submit that the matter is still pending and they moved the stay petition. Since according to the petitioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench is seized of the matter, it is for the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Division Bench for appropriate interim protection.

3. With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

10.11.2014 rgr Index : Yes/No To The Income Tax Officer, Media Ward I, Chennai  600 034.

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

rgr W.P.Nos.33938 to 33940 of 2013 10.11.2014