S P MANI & MOHAN DAIRY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the 1st respondent. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is before this court challenging the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 addressed to the petitioner's bankers, viz., Canara Bank, Cutchery Road, V.H. Road, Erode, stating that the the petitioner is due and payable a sum of Rs. 6,82,18,782/-. Earlier, a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 26.03.2018, wherein, a payment of Rs. 4,61,50,180/- was made. It appears that this amount had increased to Rs. 6,82,18,782/- on account of the tax payable by the petitioner in respect of other assessment years other than the assessment year, viz., 2014-15.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that as against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Coimbatore, dated 14.02.2018, the petitioner has 30 days time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order to prefer an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner states that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Coimbatore was served on the petitioner on 01.02018 and the last date for filing of an appeal before the Tribunal is 30.04.2018 and before the expiry of the said date, the 1st respondent/Assessing Officer could not have initiated the recovery proceeding by issuing an impugned notice under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of this court in the case of M/s.Rapid Care Transcription P. Ltd., Chennai v. The Income tax Officer, Chennai in W.P.No.33765 of 2017, dated 22.12.2017. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned notice is liable to be set aside.