9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the Tribunal to list the stay applications on Friday, 22.02.2019, and dispose the same after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. No separate notice of hearing need be issued by the Registry of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and both learned counsel before me will instruct the parties to appear for the hearing of the stay petitions on 22.02.2019 and cooperate in their conduct and disposal. Attachment of the movables, it is brought to my notice that the buses are used to facilitate the movement of students between their homes and the college. Students should not be made to suffer on account of the conflict inter se the petitioner and the Income Tax Department. Thus, while the attachment dated 07.02.2019 will continue, the Department is directed to release the buses to the petitioner solely for use in college activities. - Writ Petition Nos.4362 and 4367 of 2019 & WMP Nos.4898, 4906 and 4907 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.Venkatraman, Senior Counsel, Mr.N.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel takes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment dated 28.03.2013 were dismissed on 12.01.2017. Appeals in ITA Nos. 637 and 638 of 2017 were filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') challenging the order of the CIT(appeals) dated 12.01.2017. 6. All the appeals were dismissed on 19.6.2018 by the Tribunal as against which Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) of the Act have been filed in M.A.No.186 of 2018 (I.T.A.370/2017) and M.A.Nos.187 and 188 of 2018 (I.T.A.Nos.637 and 638 of 2017) seeking a rectification of the orders dated 19.06.2018 on the basis that the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration. The petitioner has also filed stay petitions before the ITAT in S.A.No.311/MDS/2018 and 312/MDS/2018 on 28.09.2018 seeking a stay of operation of the orders of the CIT (A) and the consequential demand for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 7. The Miscellaneous Applications are being adjourned from time to time (05.10.2018, 26.10.2018, 09.11.2018, 01.02.2019 and 15.02.2019) on account of non-functioning of the specific Bench which is to hear them. The stay petitions were also listed on various dates, (05.10.2018, 26.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to interfere with the orders of assessment orders at this juncture, also for the reason that the orders of assessment impugned before me stand telescoped into appellate orders dated 12.01.2017 passed by the CIT(A) and 19.06.2018 by the Tribunal. I am thus not inclined to consider the first prayer of the petitioner for a declaration that the assessments in question are invalid. 14. In this context, Mr.Venkatraman has drawn attention to the provisions of Section 143(3), as amended by insertion of the first proviso thereto vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2003 that reads thus: (1) ...... (2)......... (3) On the day specified in the notice (i) issued under sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may be, after hearing such evidence and after taking into account such particulars as the assessee may produce, the Assessing Officer shall, by an order in writing, allow or reject the claim or claims specified in such notice and make an assessment determining the total income or loss accordingly, and determine the sum payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment; (ii) issued under clause (ii) of sub-section (2), or as soon afterwards as may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been rescinded : 15. The specific argument advanced by him is that the assessments themselves are invalid in the light of the proviso to Section 143(3) of the Act that casts a mandate upon the Assessing Officer to frame an assessment denying the benefit of Section 10(23C) of the Act unless the officer had intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority the specifics of the contravention of the statutory provision and such approval had consequently been withdrawn. According to the learned senior counsel, this mandatory exercise had not been carried out and this vitiated the proceedings in entirety. 16. However, in the light of the fact that the Miscellaneous Applications of the Petitioner are pending before the Tribunal, and in the light of my conclusion in paragraph 13 of this order, I do not propose to delve upon this legal submission at this juncture as it will, no doubt, be considered by the Tribunal while disposing the Miscellaneous Applications, in accordance with law. 17. The second limb of the prayer in the writ petitions is to direct the 1st respondent not to take coercive action till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The interests of justice, I bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
