Shri Deepak Chinnapattan V. The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andra Pradesh-1,

WP/11781/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Deepak Chinnapattan, a proprietor of Pooja Constructions and an income tax assessee, who filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-1, and other respondents. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus due to the alleged inaction of the first respondent in not passing any order on his application dated 17th August 2007, which sought to compound offences related to suppression of income. The petitioner had previously faced reassessment of income and penalties, which he contested through various appeals. The court's decision was limited to directing the first respondent to address the pending representation without delving into the substantive issues of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727688 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: L VENKATESHWAR RAO
• Keywords: Assessment; Compounding of offences; Income Tax; Penalty; Prosecution; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11781 of 2008 Between: Shri Deepak Chinnapattan S/o Shri Manohar Rao R/o. 3-4-1013/22, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andra Pradesh-1, Income -Tax towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Posnett Bhavan, Ramkote, Hyderabad. 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Rep. by the secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ declaring the inaction on the 1st respondent herein in not passing any order on the application dated 17th August, 2007 made by the petitioner herein, as being arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to expeditiously dispose of the said application of the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.VENKATESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring inaction on the part of the first respondent in not passing any order on the application dated 17.8.2007 made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent to expeditiously dispose of the said application, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is proprietor of Pooja Constructions engaged in construction and sale of residential flats and is an Income Tax assessee. While so, the petitioner submitted returns for the year 2000-2001 showing income of Rs.3,12,046/-, as against which assessment was completed and taxable income was determined at Rs.37,49,370/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad, which was partly allowed by order, dated 22.12.2003. This order was assailed by the petitioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which, by order, dated 3.8.2005 remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner from unexplained sources. Consequently, the income of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001 was reassessed at Rs.13,68,048/- and demanded for payment of the tax accordingly. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs.9,00,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.3,45,000/- in appeal, by the petitioner. The Assessing Officer also initiated prosecution in CC No. 39 of 2007 before the Special Judge for Economic offences, Hyderabad, for suppression of income. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.08.2007 seeking to compound the alleged offences, which is pending consideration before the first respondents and also gave an undertaking dated 10.9.2007, to pay the compounding fee as determined by the Department. The petitioner, now, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 17.8.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute with regard to the above chequered events. The only relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation, dated 17.08.2007, submitted by him, to the first respondent. Consequently, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the claims made by the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 17.08.2007, submitted by the petitioner, if not already disposed of. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 10, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} "