W.P.No.27245 of 2019 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.09.2019 CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.27245 of 2019 and WMP.No.26654 of 2019 Manjula Athur W/o.Athur Balamuni Reddy Petitioner vs. Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 13(5) Room No.402, 4th Floor, Annexe Building, Aayakar Bhawan No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in PAN:AVPPM6061K/2013-2014 dated 22.01.2019 relating to assessment year 2013-2014 on file of respondent and quash same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel (IT) ORDER Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel (IT) takes notice for respondent. By consent of both parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage itself. http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 1/6 W.P.No.27245 of 2019 2. This writ petition is filed challenging order of assessment dated 22.01.2019 relevant to assessment year 2013-2014. 3. petitioner is Assessee under respondent. In respect of assessment year 2013-2014, petitioner filed returns of income on 30.12.2014. However, Assessing Officer issued notice dated 08.06.2016 under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening assessment. petitioner challenged reopening by filing writ petition in W.P.No.33318 of 2017 and this Court, disposed of said writ petition on 27.02.2018, by directing Assessing Officer to furnish reasons for reopening and also, by granting liberty to petitioner to file her objections/reply on such reasonings. Thereafter, Assessing Officer furnished reasons for reopening. petitioner filed her objections against reasons for reopening. Thereafter, Assessing Officer rejected objections through proceedings dated 25.04.2018 and same was put to challenge before this Court in WP.No.19746 of 2018. This Court, by order dated 24.08.2018 has dismissed said writ petition. Thereafter, present impugned order of assessment was passed on 22.01.2019. http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 2/6 W.P.No.27245 of 2019 4. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to petitioner to furnish her objections or details. It is stated that petitioner was bedridden at relevant point of time and she was not in position to attend hearing fixed by Assessing Officer. Thus, learned counsel contended that petitioner is having all relevant materials and therefore, she may be permitted to go before Assessing Officer and produce materials so as to enable him to pass fresh order of assessment on consideration of such materials. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity to place material details before Assessing Officer on more than one occasion and therefore, she cannot complaint, as if she was not provided with sufficient opportunity. Therefore, he contended that, as petitioner has not come forward with any material details, Assessing Officer has rightly passed order of assessment. He further submitted that petitioner can always challenge said order by filing appeal before Appellate Authority and therefore, this Court need not entertain present writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 3/6 W.P.No.27245 of 2019 6. Heard both sides and perused materials placed before this Court. 7. impugned order of assessment was passed in pursuant to reopening of assessment for relevant assessment year 2013-2014. petitioner had already approached this Court on two occasions, one immediately, on receipt of notice for reopening and another after rejection of objections raised against reasons for reopening. Though petitioner succeeded in her first attempt, where, this Court has directed Assessing Officer to furnish reasons and consider objections of petitioner and thereafter, to pass order, whereas, in second attempt, challenging order rejecting her objection for reopening, has not been successful, as this Court has dismissed writ petition as stated supra. Therefore, Assessing Officer has rightly proceeded to pass order of assessment. question now to be answered is whether petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity or not before passing order of assessment. 8. Perusal of impugned order of assessment shows that for five occasions, matter was adjourned for appearance of http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 4/6 W.P.No.27245 of 2019 Assessee and however, Assessee failed to appear and not furnished any material details either in person or through authorized representative. Therefore, Assessing Officer has completed assessment and passed impugned order. When such being factual position, I do not think that petitioner is entitled to canvass correctness or otherwise of impugned order by filing present writ petition only by stating that she is having all materials and therefore, she must be permitted to get matter reopened by Assessing Officer. I am not inclined to accept said request, as petitioner can very well raise all contentions before Appellate Authority by filing regular appeal, since such authority is also fact finding authority. 9. Therefore, without expressing any view on merits of matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of, only by granting liberty to petitioner to work out her remedy by filing appeal before Appellate Authority within period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. If any such appeal is filed within time stipulated herein, concerned Appellate Authority shall take up matter and decide same on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to period of limitation. It is open to petitioner to seek for interim relief during http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 5/6 W.P.No.27245 of 2019 K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J. mk pendency of appeal and if any such interim application is filed by petitioner, same shall be considered by concerned Appellate Authority on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.09.2019 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mk To Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 13(5) Room No.402, 4th Floor, Annexe Building, Aayakar Bhawan No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034. W.P.No.27245 of 2019 http://www.judis.nic.inPage No. 6/6 Manjula Athur v. Income-tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 13(5), Chennai