A. Selvaraj v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Chennai / The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore
[Citation -2017-LL-0725-5]

Citation 2017-LL-0725-5
Appellant Name A. Selvaraj
Respondent Name The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Chennai / The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 25/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags search and seizure operation • source of investment • competent authority • immovable property • sale deed
Bot Summary: The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the first respondent dated 22.3.2017, by which, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's request for return of a document being a sale deed registered as Doc.No.1850 of 2011 dated 18.2.2011. 132/1A, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore District, which was sold to the petitioner by M/s.Sri Hari Mills Private Limited represented by its power of attorney agent Sri.S.Arputharaj, who is none other than the son of the petitioner. The petitioner came to adverse notice of the respondent Department pursuant to a search and seizure operation conducted in the premises of the son of the petitioner as well as the residential premises of the petitioner and as of now, an order of assessment has been passed as against the son of the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.60.72 Crores by assessments made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and under Section 143(3) of the said Act for the assessment year 2015-16 by order dated 30.12.2016. In 3 assessment proceedings have been commenced against the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 153C of the said Act on 15.3.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer has submitted a report to the first respondent dated 20.3.2017 stating that the petitioner for the relevant assessment year i.e. 2011-12, has filed a return of income and has shown his total income only as Rs.16,06,447/- and therefore, the source of investment made for purchasing the subject property worth Rs.47,73,000/- remained unexplained. The first respondent stated that since the assessment proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, the document cannot be returned. Considering the fact that already the assessment proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 153C of the said Act dated 15.3.2017, it would not be proper to issue any direction to the first respondent to return the document, as the retention of the document has been explained in a proper manner, apart from an order being passed by the competent Authority, which empowers the retention of the document till 31.12.2017.


In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.7.2017 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.13748 of 2017 & WMP.No.14931 of 2017 A.Selvaraj ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai-34. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to impugned order C.No.2821/C-2/2016-17/18 dated 22.3.2017 issued by first respondent, quash same and further direct 2nd respondent to return sale deed Doc.No.1850 of 2011, general power of attorney Doc.Nos.782 of 2008 and 783 of 2008 registered before Sub-Registrar Office, Singanallur. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, SC for Mr.N.Sankarasabari For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel http://www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents. Heard both. By consent, writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by first respondent dated 22.3.2017, by which, first respondent rejected petitioner's request for return of document being sale deed registered as Doc.No.1850 of 2011 dated 18.2.2011. said document pertains to immovable property measuring extent of 2.07 acres in S.F.No.132/1A, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore District, which was sold to petitioner by M/s.Sri Hari Mills Private Limited represented by its power of attorney agent Sri.S.Arputharaj, who is none other than son of petitioner. 3. petitioner came to adverse notice of respondent Department pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted in premises of son of petitioner as well as residential premises of petitioner and as of now, order of assessment has been passed as against son of petitioner demanding sum of Rs.60.72 Crores by assessments made under Section 153A of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 and under Section 143(3) of said Act for assessment year 2015-16 by order dated 30.12.2016. reason assigned by first respondent in impugned order is that http://www.judis.nic.in 3 assessment proceedings have been commenced against petitioner by issuing notice under Section 153C of said Act on 15.3.2017 for assessment year 2011-12. 4. Assessing Officer has submitted report to first respondent dated 20.3.2017 stating that petitioner for relevant assessment year i.e. 2011-12, has filed return of income and has shown his total income only as Rs.16,06,447/- and therefore, source of investment made for purchasing subject property worth Rs.47,73,000/- remained unexplained. Therefore, first respondent stated that since assessment proceedings have been initiated against petitioner, document cannot be returned. 5. Considering fact that already assessment proceedings have been initiated against petitioner by issuing notice under Section 153C of said Act dated 15.3.2017, it would not be proper to issue any direction to first respondent to return document, as retention of document has been explained in proper manner, apart from order being passed by competent Authority, which empowers retention of document till 31.12.2017. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to set aside impugned proceedings. However, this Court is inclined to issue direction to second respondent - Assessing Officer to complete assessment http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS proceedings initiated against petitioner dealer pursuant to notice dated 15.3.2017, at early date. 6. Thus, while rejecting challenge to impugned proceedings, writ petition is disposed of with direction to Assessing Officer - second respondent to complete assessment proceedings initiated against petitioner pursuant to notice dated 15.3.2017 under Section 153C of said Act, within period of 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this order provided petitioner extends his fullest cooperation with Assessing Officer for completing assessment. No costs. Consequently, above WMP is closed. 25.7.2017 Internet : Yes To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai-34. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore. WP.No.13748 of 2017& WMP.No.14931 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in A. Selvaraj v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Chennai / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore
Report Error