Ram Prasath Muthunarayanan Reddy Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dismissed a batch of intra-Court appeals challenging assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 for six assessment years passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that no order under Section 127 had been passed and served and that the assessments suffered from limitation.
The Revenue stated that the appellant had been issued notice regarding centralisation, acknowledged it and conveyed no objection, following which the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 16.03.2021 under Section 127(2). The order was communicated to the appellant by letter dated 17.03.2021 and uploaded on the income-tax portal.
Core Issue: Whether the assessment orders could be challenged as without jurisdiction on the ground that no order under section 127(2) transferring/centralising the assessee’s case had been passed or served.
High Court Finding: The Division Bench rejected the jurisdictional contention. It noted that the Revenue had specifically stated in its detailed counter-affidavit that the section 127(2) order was passed after the assessee conveyed his no objection, was intimated to him and was uploaded on the portal. These factual assertions were not denied by filing a rejoinder before the writ court. The assessee, therefore, could not raise a contrary jurisdictional contention for the first time in the intra-Court appeals.
The Court found no error or infirmity in the writ court’s decision granting liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Outcome: The intra-Court appeals were dismissed. Since the original 30-day period granted for filing statutory appeals had expired, the High Court granted the assessee a further four weeks to file appeals before the appellate authority. All issues raised in the writ petitions and intra-Court appeals were expressly kept open for adjudication by the appellate authority. There was no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The appellant/assessee has filed a batch of intra-Court appeals challenging the orders of the writ court dated 17.11.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.15435, 15432, 15429, 15430, 15433 and 15434 of 2023.
2. The appellant has challenged the assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 passed in respect of six assessment years under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act“).
3. The grounds of challenge raised by the appellant before the Writ Court are that an order under Section 127 of the Act was not passed and, therefore, the assessment orders passed are without jurisdiction and that the assessment orders suffer from limitation.
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit before the Writ Court resisting the claim contending that the assessment orders came to be passed after due compliance with the provisions of the Act.
5. The Writ Court considered the issues and recorded the averments made by the respondent in the counter-affidavit that the appellant was issued with notice, which he had acknowledged and had conveyed his no objection and based on the same, the order dated 16.3.2021 was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 127(2) of the Act for centralization and the appellant was also informed about the order vide letter dated 17.3.2021 which has also been uploaded on the portal. The learned Single Judge, by recording these specific averments and also the averment that the appellant had full knowledge about the orders passed and that the respondent had jurisdiction to complete the assessment proceedings, rejected the challenge raised qua jurisdiction and further by relying on the documents placed before the Court found that from the postal despatch record, the orders dated 31.3.2022 were sent and communicated to the appellant and, thus, the learned Single Judge, rejected the challenge on both the grounds. On such rejection, the Writ Court had granted liberty to the appellant and relegated him to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within 30 days.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the order under Section 127(2) of the Act was not passed and served on the appellant.
7. We are not in agreement with the said contention made by learned counsel for the appellant in view of the fact that when a detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent before the Writ Court that based on the no objection given by the appellant the order dated 16.3.2021 was passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 127(2) of the Act and the same was also intimated to the appellant vide letter dated 17.3.2021 and was also uploaded on the portal and when the appellant did not deny the same by filing a rejoinder, the said contention cannot be allowed to be raised in these writ appeals.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any error and/or infirmity in the orders passed by the Writ Court, wherein the Writ Court had granted liberty to the appellant to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 30 days. However, considering the fact that the 30 days time granted by the Writ Court has already lapsed, we are inclined to extend the time by further four weeks to enable the appellant to file appeals as directed by the Writ Court. All the issues raised in these appeals and the writ petitions are kept open to be agitated and adjudicated by the appellate authority.
9. With the above observation, these appeals stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
