L. Gopalakrishnan Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order that directed the appellant to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that additional time should have been granted to submit a reply before the Assessing Officer and expressed concern that pursuing the appeal would require a pre-deposit. The Revenue submitted that Section 246A contains no provision mandating pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). After examining the provision, the Court held that no such requirement exists. Finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, the Court upheld the direction to pursue the appellate remedy. It further directed that the period spent in the writ proceedings be excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the judgment dated 02.12.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.7510 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge had disposed of the petition with liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that he required three days time to submit his reply before the Assessing Officer, after which the matter could have been decided. He would further submit that, since the appellant was on a pilgrimage, he could not file the reply in time. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge misconstrued that no reply has been given to the earlier show cause notices, except the notice dated 29.02.2024. As the learned Single Judge has relegated the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy, the appellant is required to make pre-deposit to avail the remedy on appeal.
