2018 (1) TMI 455 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification petition - petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to enforce the arrears of demand pending disposal of the rectification petition filed - Held that - Since a petition has been filed by the petitioner and has been received by the office of the second respondent on 11.12.2017, it would be appropriate for the second respondent to pass an order on merits and in accordance with law. At this stage, this Court does not want to express any opinion as to the manner, in which, the second respondent should consider such a rectification petition and he is free to consider the same in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner s rectification petition dated 11.12.2017, purported to have been filed under Section 154 of the said Act, on merits and pass appropriate orders and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought by petitioner regarding arrears of demand pending disposal of rectification petition.
2. Consideration of rectification petition under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Dismissal of appeal by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on grounds of delay.
4. Jurisdiction of the second respondent under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 1:
The petitioner requested a direction to the respondents not to enforce arrears of demand pending the disposal of the rectification petition. The petitioner sought relief regarding the enforcement of arrears during the pendency of the rectification petition filed before the second respondent.

Issue 2:
The petitioner urged the second respondent to consider the rectification petition dated 11.12.2017, filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that a specific ground raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not been addressed in the previous order.

Issue 3:
The Revenue's Junior Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioner's appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed due to a delay of 408 days, without sufficient cause shown. This dismissal raised doubts on whether the second respondent could exercise jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue 4:
Despite the concerns raised, the court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's rectification petition dated 11.12.2017 on its merits and in accordance with the law. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the specific process the second respondent should follow, leaving it to the respondent's discretion.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petition by instructing the second respondent to review the petitioner's rectification petition promptly, preferably within six months from the date of receiving the court's order. The court emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petition and an opportunity for the petitioner's representative to present their case. No costs were awarded, and the related Writ Motion Petition was closed accordingly.