Case Law Details
Palanisamy Jeevanantham Vs PCIT (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently issued a crucial directive in the case of Palanisamy Jeevanantham Vs PCIT, ordering the revival of a tax appeal. This article delves into the details of the case, examining the circumstances leading to the court’s decision and its potential impact on the petitioner and revenue.
Detailed Analysis
1. Background of the Case: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order from the first respondent dated 23.01.2023. This order pertained to an assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 B dated 29.03.2022. Before filing a revision, the petitioner had initially filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Chronology of Events: The petitioner, anticipating a hearing notice from the first respondent, approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to withdraw the appeal. The Commissioner accepted the withdrawal request, dismissing the appeal on 21.12.2022. However, the first respondent, in the subsequent revision application, declined to interfere with the assessment order, stating the petitioner’s recourse was to file an appeal.
3. Impugned Order Analysis: The impugned order dated 23.01.2023 emphasized the department’s possession of information indicating income escaping assessment. The court noted that the Faceless Assessing Officer followed due procedure, adhering to principles of natural justice. Despite accepting the petitioner’s submissions, the first respondent declined to intervene, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
4. High Court Directive: Considering the potential impact on both the petitioner and revenue, the High Court directed the revival of the withdrawn appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court underscored that failure to do so would affect the interests of both parties.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s directive to revive the appeal underscores the complexities and intricacies of tax assessment proceedings. This ruling not only serves the petitioner’s interest but also safeguards the revenue’s concerns. The detailed analysis sheds light on the legal nuances involved, offering insights into the court’s decision-making process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 23.01.2023.
2. Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent is the Revisional Authority and against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with section 144 B dated 29.03.2022, the petitioner filed a Revision before the first respondent/Revisional Authority, however, before filing such Revision, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/fourth respondent; that subsequent to the filing of the Revision Application, the petitioner received a notice of hearing from the first respondent on 09.12.2022, in these circumstances, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with a request to withdraw the Appeal; that the fourth respondent also accepted the request of the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Appeal and accordingly, dismissed the Appeal by order dated 21.12.2022; that however, in a Revision Application, though the first respondent accepted almost all the submission made by the petitioner, declined to interfere with the assessment order of FAO and passed the impugned order under Section 264 of the Act dated 23.01.2023 by observing that the recourse available to the petitioner is to file an Appeal. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for appropriate direction.
3. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department would submit since the said Appeal filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent was not adjudicated and the same was withdrawn owing to filing of Revision before the first respondent, and now, by virtue of the impugned order passed by the first respondent/Revisional Authority, petitioner has been asked to workout their remedy before the Appellate Commissioner, fourth respondent, as was done by the petitioner at the first instance, he has no objection for appropriate directions being issued.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department.
5. Aggrieved against the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with section 144 B dated 29.03.2022, the petitioner filed a Revision before the first respondent/Revisional Authority, however, before filing such Revision Application, the petitioner also filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/fourth respondent, but, subsequent to the filing of the Revision Application, since the petitioner received a notice of hearing from the first respondent/Revisional Authority dated 09.12.2022, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to withdraw the Appeal stating the aforesaid reason, and the fourth respondent also accepted the request of the petitioner and dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 21.12.2022 and also recorded the reasons for such withdrawal. However, since unexpectedly, the first respondent/Revisional Authority though accepted all the submissions made by the petitioner, but, ultimately, declined to interfere with the assessment order of FAO by means of the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court seeking leave of this Court to pursue the Appeal. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the relevant para of the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.01.2023, which is as follows:-
“I have carefully considered the materials available on record (viz.), the petition u/s 264 of the Act, the factual report of the AO as well as the Range Head and also the impugned assessment orders. Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the department was in possession of information pointing towards Income escaping assessment and the relevant statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee had also made compliances to the said notices by filing the requisite details. The Faceless Assessing Officer, has followed the due procedure of law and has concluded the assessment based on the material available on hand. Principles of natural justice has been duly followed and afforded to the assessee. All the objections made by the assessee has been rebutted in the assessment order and the FAO has given a finding of fact. If at all the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the FAO, the recourse available is to file an appeal against the order of the FAO. Having perused the facts of the case, the chronology of sequences in the assessment order, and the conclusion made by the FAO, I decline to interfere in the orders passed supra for the assessment year 2013-14, and therefore the petition is disposed of as above.”
5.1 Thus, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, unless and until, the fourth respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take back the Appeal filed by the petitioner on file, not only the interest of the petitioner would get affected but also that of the revenue’s. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass orders to revive the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) bearing Appeal No., NFAC/2012-13/10134700.
5.2 Accordingly, the Appeal bearing Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10134700 stands revived. Consequently, the fourth respondent/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is directed to take up the Appeal on file and dispose of the same as per the provisions of the law.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
