LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-34

S KARUNAKARAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On April 19, 2012
CAPLIN POINT LABORATORIES LIMITED Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed seeking the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents from initiating and or continuing any recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed demand relating to the assessment year 1995-96 in respect of which an appeal and stay petition are pending before the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the said appeal and the petition for stay by the said respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Relevant assessment year is 1995-96 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.3.1995. THE petitioner/ assessee filed his return of income on 28.11.1995 admitting total income of Rs.2,57,270/- after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC and 80I of Rs.1,76,116 and Rs.1,44,463/- respectively. THE said assessment was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the assessing officer issued a notice under Section 148 on 18.2.2000 for reopening the assessment. Objecting the same, the petitioner also filed a letter dated 9.3.2000. THE assessing officer completed the assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 and determined the total income at Rs.5,77,850/-. While completing the assessment, the assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC and 80I. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal confirming the order of assessment. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is still pending. When the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, the revenue initiated recovery proceedings by way of issuing garnishee order under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner/assessee filed present writ petition challenging the garnishee order.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material documents on record.