1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2017 CORAM HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.13612 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Rohini Holdings Private Limited, New No.137, (Old No.67), Chamiers Road, Chennai 600 028 Represented by its Director, Mr.R.Chandramouli ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Company Circle V(4), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle V(4), 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of impugned order in C.No.3032/8/III/2006-07 dated 28.02.2008 passed by first respondent herein and quash same and further directing second respondent to exclude doubly taxed income in hands of petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondents : Mr.Navin Durai Babu http://www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER Heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Navin Durai Babu, learned Junior Counsel for respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order passed by 1st respondent under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961. said petition was filed contending that during course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that since petitioner was still contesting additions in earlier years, they cannot delete those incomes in assessment years 2003-2004 and counter this argument, petitioner filed petition under Section 154 to rectify assessment by deleting these amounts with assurance that in case, they succeed in Tax Case Appeal pending before this Court for year 2000-2001, petitioner will not have any objection at all in subsequent revision of assessment for year 2003-2004 by adding those incomes in said assessment year. In spite of such stand taken before Assessing Officer, he has rejected petitioner's application for rectification against which revision petition was filed before 1st respondent under Section 264 of Act. said revision petition was dismissed by impugned http://www.judis.nic.in 3 order. It may not be necessary for this Court to test correctness of impugned proceedings on account of subsequent development, which took place during pendency of writ petition. 3.As noticed earlier, petitioner had filed Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1074 of 2004, 1184 of 2008 and 502 and 704 of 2009 before Division Bench. In so far as relevant assessment year is concerned, viz., 2003-2004, Appeal in T.C.No.704 of 2009, Hon'ble Division Bench, by common Judgment dated 16.08.2011 [reported in (2012) 345 ITR 0446 (Rohini Holdings (P) Ltd., V. Commissioner of Income Tax)], allowed said appeal and operative portion of Judgment reads as follows: 28.In light of abovesaid fact, Tribunal's order as regards assessment for asst. yr. 2003-04 in respect of appeal in Tax Case No.704 of 2009 is set aside and same is allowed in part, with direction to AO to redo same, taking note that interest income at Rs. 52.50 lakhs has to be assessed under each of assessment year starting from 2000-01 onwards. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 4.Thus, Assessing Officer has to implement Judgment rendered in T.C.(A).No.704 of 2009 and impugned order in this writ petition will not come in way of Assessing Officer implementing direction issued by Division Bench. Thus, challenge to impugned proceedings has become academic and it would suffice to make observation that notwithstanding impugned proceedings passed by 1st respondent, Assessing Officer shall implement Judgment passed by Division Bench as noted above. 5.With above observation, Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07.11.2017 Speaking /Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Sgl http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To 1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Designated Authority), Coimbatore. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur South, Tirupur. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Sgl W.P.No.13612 of 2009 07.11.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Rohini Holdings Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Company Circle V(4), Chennai/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle V(4), Chennai