Mabbu Jayaramiah V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P. and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P. and The Income-Tax Officer Ward-2(2) Varadarajanagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A.P.

WP/23745/2007

AI Insights

Mabbu Jayaramiah, the petitioner, challenged the assessment order dated 31.3.2001 and the sanction for prosecution dated 21.2.2007, arguing that he was not served the assessment order for the assessment year 1996-97, and thus the subsequent proceedings were illegal. The respondents countered that the assessment order was duly served on 1.4.2001, and the petitioner did not utilize the statutory appeal provisions under the Income Tax Act. The court, after reviewing the evidence, including the acknowledgment of receipt of the assessment order, dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need to follow statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797148 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: D KRISHNA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Prosecution Proceedings; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 279(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23745 of 2007 Between: Mabbu Jayaramiah, S/o. Late M. Subbaiah, R/o. Srinivasa Mangapuram Village and Post, Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P. 2 The Depputy Commissinoer of Income Tax, Circle-I, Tirupati, Chittoor District. A.P. 3 The Income -Tax Officer Ward -2(2) Varadarajanagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring against first and Second respondents in not serving orders dated 31-3-2001 of second respondent and orders of dated 21-2-2007 in F.No. Prosecutition-I/CII/TPT/06-76 by first respondent is illegal and without valid law and violation of principles of natural justice under Art. 21 of constitution of India, consequently launching criminal complainant by third respondent in C.C.No. 29 of 2007 in the court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad is illegal further direct first and second respondents to serve all certified copies of a above orders giving a reasonable opportunity to prefer further appeal before statutory appellate authority and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: D .RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by Mabbu Jayaramaiah assailing the assessment order dated 31.3.2001 and also sanction of prosecution proceedings dated 21.2.2007. The petitioner is an income tax assesse. He filed tax returns for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The competent authority initiated proceedings on the ground that he suppressed income during the assessment year 1996-97. The assessment order came to be passed on 31.3.2001. Thereafter, sanction came to be granted to prosecute him for the offences under sections 279(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 wide proceedings F.NO.PROSECUTION 1/CII/TPT/06-07,dated 21.2.2007. Hence, this writ petition. 2. The respondents filed counter affidavit. Reply is also filed by the petitioner. The respondents pleaded in the counter affidavit that assessment order along with the demand notice and challan came to be served on the petitioner on 1.4.2001 and the petitioner did not chose to question the assessment order by way of filing a statutory appeal provided in the Income Tax Act by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not served the assessment order for the assessment year 1996-97 and therefore consequent proceedings taken out by the department thereon are not legal and proper. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Department has been served on the petitioner and the petitioner did not chose to challenge the same by availing the remedies available under the Income Tax Act. The respondents along with the counter affidavit placed on record the Photostat copy of acknowledgement. He further submits that the original of it has been filed in C.C.No.29 of 2007. 6. A perusal of photostat copy of the acknowledgement slip along with demand notice and challan indicates that the assessment order has been served on the petitioner on 1.4.2001. The petitioner having not availed the forum available under the Income Tax Act, cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Dated: 12th June 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.23745 OF 2007 POSTED IN WEB. DATED: 12-06-2008. "