1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 19.3.2015 CORAM HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.7718 of 2015 A.Kaliyaperumal Petitioner Vs. 1. Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes South Block, New Delhi 2. Director of Income Tax Office of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) VII Floor Annexe Building 121 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. 3 Income Tax Officer (OSD) Tax Recovery Officer International Taxation VII Floor Annexe Building, 121 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. 4 Tax Recovery Officer Income Tax Office Thanjavur. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of certiorari calling for records of Second Respondent relating to proceedings bearing No. DIT/IT/CHE/ 115/273A/2014-15 dated 11.09.2014 2 and demand notice bearing TRC-2/2014-15/INTL. TXN dated 10.09.2014 issued by 3rd respondent under Sec.156 of Income Tax Act 1961 and quash same. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Udayakumar For Respondents :Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda ORDER petitioner has come forward with above writ petition to quash proceedings dated 11.9.2014 and demand notice dated 10.9.2014 passed by respondents. 2. petitioner is non-resident Indian working in Singapore. petitioner was directed to file income tax return for year 1995-96. He filed return declaring nil income. On receipt of return filed by petitioner, respondents directed him to explain investment towards purchase of property in Mannargudi. petitioner also explained same. According to petitioner, property was purchased by him out of sale proceeds of gold brought under NRI scheme. Notwithstanding said explanation, authorities had 3 levied tax by proceedings dated 28.10.2002. Aggrieved against said order, petitioner preferred appeal along with condone delay petition, however, same was dismissed on account of delay but not on merits. Thereafter, petitioner appears to have made representation dated 05.6.2010 to authority. Since same was not considered, petitioner filed writ petition in WP.No.21021 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 24.09.2010, directed petitioner to make fresh application for waiver. Pursuant to same, petitioner made representation dated 28.12.2011. Since same was also not considered, petitioner filed another writ petition in WP.No.7319 of 2012 and this Court, by order dated 27.3.2012 directed respondents therein to consider and dispose of representation dated 25.12.2010 and 28.12.2011. Without considering request made by petitioner, respondents have passed impugned order. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that inspite of repeated request made by petitioner before second respondent to waive interest, fine and penalty, 4 respondents have passed impugned order that too, without considering representations made by petitioner and without giving opportunity of personal hearing to him. Therefore, impugned order is per se illegal and non est in eye of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to petitioner to pay interest, fine and penalty apart from tax amount, which is due from 1994 1995. But, petitioner failed to avail opportunity given by authority. learned counsel further submitted that after considering case of petitioner as per direction of this Court, impugned order has been passed and, therefore, no indulgence should be shown to petitioner. Thus, learned counsel prays for dismissal of writ petition. 5. I have heard submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused materials available on record. 5 6. Though there is some force in contention of learned counsel for respondent, in interest of justice, there will be no harm in giving one more opportunity to petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner failed to take effective steps to avail opportunity given to him. Therefore, I am inclined to remit matter to authority for fresh consideration provided petitioner deposits entire tax amount demanded by authority. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to Authority concerned for fresh consideration. petitioner is directed to appear before authority concerned on 01.5.2015 along with objections and documents, if any, without waiting for any fresh notice from respondents and on such appearance, authority concerned shall consider objections raised and documents to be produced by petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. petitioner shall deposits entire tax amount demanded before authority concerned on or before 30.4.2015. 7. In case petitioner fails to avail opportunity 6 on 01.5.2015 and failed to deposit amount as stated above, impugned order shall stands restored. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ga Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes To Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (C)-II Office of Income Tax Department, 108, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 7 S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., ga W.P.No.7718 of 2015 19.3.2015 A. Kaliyaperumal v. Chairman, CBDT, New Delhi/ DIT (International Taxation) VII, Chennai/ ITO (ODS) Tax Recovery Officer International Taxation VII, Chennai/ Tax Recovery Officer, Thanjavur