Madras High Court
Indira Subramanian vs M/S. Tamizhvel Thiru P.T. Rajan ... on 31 March, 2016
Author: R. Subbiah
Bench: R. Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31-03-2016
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
Writ Petition No. 49 of 2016
--
Indira Subramanian
Trustee
Thamizhvel Thiru P.T. Rajan Commemoration Trust
9/10, Jaganathan Street
Kottivakkam
Chennai - 600 041 .. Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. Tamizhvel Thiru P.T. Rajan Commemoration Trust
No.26, Second Street
East Abhiramapuram
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
represented by its Registrar
A/3, 2nd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan
Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090
3. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (E)-1
No.121, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai - 600 034
4. Thiru. N. Ramesh Rajan
M/s. Tamizhvel Thiru P.T. Rajan Commemoration Trust
No.26, Second Street
East Abhiramapuram
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
5. Thiru. M. Thirumurthy
M/s. Tamizhvel Thiru P.T. Rajan Commemoration Trust
No.26, Second Street
East Abhiramapuram
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004 .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to forthwith implead the petitioner herein as a proper and necessary party in the appeal ITA No. 1080 of2015 pending before it and which is scheduled to come up for hearing on 6th January 2016 and hear the petitioner and consequently dispose of the appeal, after considering the arguments to be advanced by the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Ravi
For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Bagmarr for R1
Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda SPC for R2
Mr. J. Narayanasamy for R3
Mr. D. Shivakumaran for RR4 and 5
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent/Tribunal to implead her as a proper and necessary party in the appeal in ITA No. 1080 of2015 pending before it and which is scheduled to come up for hearing on 6th January 2016, hear the petitioner and consequently dispose of the appeal, after considering the arguments to be advanced on her behalf.
2. The petitioner claims to be a close relative of Dr. P.T.R Pazhanivel Rajan and Mrs. Rukmini Pazhanivel Rajan and is very much interested in the affairs of the first respondent Trust. According to the petitioner, the first respondent Trust was formed on 27.03.1991 in memory of Late. Tamizhvel P.T. Rajan in which the father of the fourth respondent Late. Mr. S. Natarajan became a Life Trustee. As per the Trust Deed, maximum of 7 Trustees can be inducted in to the Trust. The object with which the Trust came to be formed was to render charity to the general public. An initial corpus of Rs.1,001/- was made, but thereafter, the Trust was unable to augment it's income or it made any activity. While so, the first respondent Trust approached the Government seeking permission to grant lease of land measuring 8,404 square meters to enable the Trust to construct a Kalyana Mandapam. The government also accorded permission and accordingly a Kalyana Mandapam was constructed and it was let out for performance of marriage from 2001 whereby the trust started earning huge rentals. According to the petitioner, the first respondent Trust did not comply with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and did not properly utilised the income for charitable purpose. Thereafter, the first respondent voluntarily disclosed a sum of Rs.4 crores as income for the previous six years without informing the trustees. According to the petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondent were instrumental for such voluntary disclosure of income and resorting to pay past taxes in excess of Rs.50 lakhs under E.C.E.S. scheme unilaterally without informing the other trustees. According to the petitioner, the fourth and fifth respondents have no exclusive authority to manage the first respondent/Trust however, they were instrumental for the first respondent trust being prosecuted by various authorities.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in connection with the financial transaction relating to the first respondent, on behalf of the Trust, I.T.A. No. 1080/Mds/ 2015 was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Chennai against the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai under Section 263 of the Act. In the said appeal proceedings, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. According to the petitioner, she is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the appeal pending before the Tribunal. If she is impleaded as a party to the income tax appeal proceedings, she will be in a position to appraise the correct fact and affairs of the Trust. However, the Tribunal refused to hear the petitioner as she was not a party before it in the appeal. According to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and in exercise of the powers conferred under the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal ought to have impleaded the petitioner herein as a proper and necessary party, but it failed to do so. In such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.
4. The fourth respondent, against whom certain allegations have been made by the petitioner, has filed his counter. The learned counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents would contend that when the appeal was taken up for hearing before the Tribunal, the Department representative produced a letter written by the petitioner on 29.05.2015 seeking to participate in the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal sought the response of the fourth respondent and he has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for being heard even though she was not a party to the income tax proceedings. Notwithstanding such objection, when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 06.01.2016 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal permitted Mr. K. Ravi, counsel for the petitioner, to make his submissions and accordingly, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K. Ravi, advocate, has made his submissions before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was represented by an advocate before the Tribunal. After giving opportunity to the petitioner and the applicant in the appeal, the Tribunal reserved orders on 06.01.2016. Thereafter, on 18.03.2016, the Tribunal disposed of the I.T.A. No. 1080/Mds/2015 and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
5. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the material records. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the income tax appeal proceedings relating to the first respondent-Trust, she was not impleaded as a party and therefore, she sought for a direction to the Tribunal to implead her and to hear her submissions in the appeal proceedings. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was heard by the Tribunal insite of being objected by the respondents 4 and 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of I.T.A. No.1080/Mds/2015 on 18.03.2016. A copy of the order dated 18.03.2016 has been produced for my perusal. From the order dated 18.03.2016, it is clear that the petitioner was also heard by the Tribunal and the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:-
"8. Two of the trustees filed petitions before the Tribunal praying for an opportunity of hearing. One Smt. Indira Subramaniam, by her letter dated 29.05.2015 claimed herself that she is one of the trustees of the assessee-trust. She has also made an allegation in the petition that the assessee-trust wrongly clasified the rental income as voluntary donation with an intention of not spending the income for charity as required by law.
9. Shri. K. Ravi, the learned counsel for Smt. Indra Subramaniam, appeared before this Tribunal during the course of the hearing of appeal. The ld. counsel submitted that he represents Smt. Indra Subramaniam, one of the trustees of the assessee-trust and he should be given an opportunity to argue the appeal. On a query from the Bench under what provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Smt. Indra Subramaniam is praying for an opportunity of being heard, especially when she is not responsible for filing return of income on behalf of the assessee-trust, the ld. Counsel could not point out any provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Shri. K. Ravi, ld. Counsel submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a procedure to file an application for impleading. Therefore, by taking clue from the Code of Civil Procedure, Smt. Indra Subramaniam shall be impleaded as one of the party in the proceedings......"
6. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and the submissions made on her behalf were also recorded by the Tribunal while passing the final order dated 18.03.2016. In such view of the matter, the grievance sought to be ventilated by the petitioner is no longer survives for consideration of this Tribunal. The relief sought for in this writ petition has become infructuous.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP No. 14 of 2016 is closed.
31-03-2016 rsh Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To R. SUBBIAH, J rsh WP No. 49 of 2016 31-03-2016