THE MADURAI DISTRICT V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP(MD)/4788/2014

AI Insights

The case involves The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., which filed writ petitions challenging an order under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, concerning tax deduction at source for the assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The bank argued that the order did not consider the applicability of Section 194-A(3)(v) and a relevant CBDT circular. However, the court noted that the bank had already filed a statutory appeal against the same order, and thus, the writ petitions were dismissed based on the principle of not allowing simultaneous legal proceedings for the same matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727806 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: W.P.(MD) No.12144 of 2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R KRISHNAMOORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Co-operative Bank; Income Tax; Tax deduction at source; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 201(1); 194-A; 194 A(3)(V)

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD)Nos.4788 & 4789 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, M.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.N.S.Devan, No.187, North Veli Street, Madurai - 625 001. Madurai District. ... Petitioner in both the W.Ps. Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Income Tax Department, V.P.R.Nadar Road, Madurai. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, TDS Ward, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai. ... Respondents in both the W.Ps. Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the petitioner herein (in PAN No.AADFT2450J) for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and the order passed by the second respondent under Section 201(1), vide C.No.TDS/MDU/MRIT00069G/2013-14, dated 17.02.2014 and quash the order passed by the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi (in both the W.Ps.) For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy (in both the W.Ps.) COMMON ORDER Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2.The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions for Certiorari, to call for the records of the petitioner herein https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (in PAN No.AADFT2450J) for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and the order passed by the second respondent under Section 201(1), vide C.No.TDS/MDU/MRIT00069G/2013-14, dated 17.02.2014 and quash the same. 3. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order. 4. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and obtained licence from the Reserve Bank of India to carryout banking activities. The petitioner is engaged in the business of Banking, having 39 branches including Head Office in Madurai, since 11.01.2012. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the order passed by the second respondent, since the second respondent by an order under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, considered the petitioner as liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act, without considering the petitioner's submission relating to the applicability of Section 194-A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act and without considering the CBDT circular No.9 of 2002, dated 11.09.2002. 5. Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitioner by challenging the impugned order, has already filed statutory appeal before the first respondent. As against the same order, the present writ petitions have been filed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. In an identical situation, this Court has passed an order in W.P.(MD) No.12144 of 2012, dated 02.09.2013, which reads as follows:- \"2.Today when the matter is taken up, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 fairly stated that the present writ petition challenging the impugned order cannot be taken up for hearing, since, the petitioner is riding on two horses simultaneously, for, he has already filed a statutory appeal before the third respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Trichy, against the very same order, which is also under challenge in the present writ petition. When the appeal filed by the petitioner on 25.01.2012 before the third respondent is not even disposed of, it is highly improper on the part of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition and again by taking note of the copy of the memorandum filed by the petitioner before the third respondent, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the appeal against the impugned order is now pending for consideration. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Fully agreeing with the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief, because the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands inasmuch as, when he has already filed appeal against the same impugned order, dated 29.12.2011, he should not have filed this writ petition without disclosing this fact. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent. However, as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for a quite long time before the third respondent, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, dated 25.01.2012 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In my considered opinion, the said order is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also, since the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order of the second respondent and the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for a quite long time before the first respondent, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Income Tax Department, V.P.R.Nadar Road, Madurai. 2.The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, TDS Ward, Kulamangalam Main Road, Meenambalpuram, Madurai. +1cc to Mr. K.Ravi Advocate in SR.No. 17828 +1cc to Mr. R.Krishnamoorthy,Advocate in SR.No. 17777 TS/08.05.2014/3P-5c Writ Petition (MD)Nos.4788 & 4789 of 2014 19.03.2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "