Case Law Details
Balasubramani Ponnudurai Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The case of Balasubramani Ponnudurai vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) recently came before the Madras High Court regarding a bank attachment notice issued due to alleged PAN fraud. This article delves into the details of the judgment and its implications.
The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice dated 18.01.2024, following an assessment order from 29.12.2019, asserting fraudulent linking of their PAN to an SBI account. Notably, the RBI acknowledged this linkage during the 2016-17 financial year. The petitioner sought intervention against the attachment notice.
While the appellant urged expeditious disposal of the appeal, Dr. B. Ramaswamy, representing respondents 1 and 5, contended that interference wasn’t warranted due to the pending statutory appeal.
The court reviewed the documents, noting the assessment order’s issuance by the first respondent and the ongoing appeal before the fifth respondent. Given the pending statutory appeal, the court advised the petitioner to seek any interim relief through the appellate authority.
Consequently, the court declined to interfere, directing the appellate authority to expedite the appeal process. The case was disposed of with no costs imposed.
The judgment in Balasubramani Ponnudurai vs. ITO underscores the significance of pursuing statutory appeal channels in tax matters. It highlights the court’s reluctance to intervene when statutory avenues for redressal are available. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to due process in resolving legal disputes related to tax assessments.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Fraudulent liking of PAN with Others Bank Account: HC directs appellate authority to Dispose Appeal quickly
The petitioner assails a bank attachment notice dated 18.01.2024 pursuant to assessment order dated 29.12.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter relates to the petitioner’s PAN being fraudulently linked to the SBI account of Sundaram Agencies. He also submits that the RBI, by communication of 30.03.2021 acknowledged that the petitioner’s PAN was linked to the other account for a brief period during financial year 2016-17. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impugned bank attachment notice warrants interference.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant also makes a request that the appeal be disposed of expeditiously.
3. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondents 1 and 5. He submits that no case is made out for interference in view of the pending statutory appeal.
4. The documents on record disclose that the assessment order was issued by the first respondent on 29.12.2019. The matter was carried in appeal by the petitioner before the fifth respondent and such appeal is pending before the fifth respondent.
5. Since a statutory appeal was filed against the assessment order, it is appropriate that the petitioner approach the appellate authority if any interim order is required. Therefore, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein.
6. In these circumstances, W.P.No.5812 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal as quickly as the business of the appellate authority permits. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.6447, 6450 and 6457 of 2024 are closed.
Author Bio
