2020 (9) TMI 200 - HC - Income Tax

Petitions u/s 154 - petitioner not complied with the requirements of Section 194N - HELD THAT - Petitioner only asked for a Mandamus for directing the respondent to dispose of this petition. When the petitioner himself has not challenged the orders passed by the respondent, it would not be proper for me to quash the same. However, the respondent is directed to dispose of the petitions filed by the petitioner u/s 154 of the Act in the light of the order 2020 (8) TMI 728 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Such an order will be passed by the respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is restrained from giving effect to the order that is sought to be rectified by the petitioner herein till the rectification proceedings are concluded.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged non-compliance with Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Petitioner's challenge to the respondent's orders under Section 154 of the Act.
3. Request for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the petitions.
4. Judicial decision on the petition and related orders.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitioner, a District Central level Co-operative Bank, was accused of not complying with Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent had issued multiple orders confirming demands mentioned in cause notices. The petitioner, aggrieved by these orders, filed petitions under Section 154 of the Act on 23.03.2020.

2. The main issue in this case was the petitioner's request for the respondent to take up and decide on the petitions filed under Section 154 of the Act. The court noted that while other similar writ petitions challenged orders passed by Assessing Officers, the petitioner in this case had not challenged the orders but sought a Mandamus for the respondent to address the pending petitions.

3. The court, considering the petitioner's stance of not challenging the orders directly, decided not to quash the orders passed by the respondent. However, it directed the respondent to dispose of the pending petitions under Section 154 within twelve weeks from the date of the order. The respondent was also restrained from implementing the order being rectified until the rectification process was completed.

4. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was allowed without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment provided clarity on the petitioner's request for a Mandamus and the respondent's obligation to address the pending petitions under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the court's reasoning, and the final decision rendered by the Madras High Court in this case.