LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-445

ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, SRI RATHINASABATHI, ANNAMALAI NAGAR, CHIDAMBARAM Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), S.N. CHAVADY CUDDALORE

Decided On January 02, 2018
Annamalai University, Rep. By Its Registrar, Sri Rathinasabathi, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram Appellant
V/S
The Income Tax Officer, Ward I (1), S.N. Chavady Cuddalore Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is a University, called Annamalai University and they are aggrieved by the notices issued by the respondent proposing to reopen the income tax assessment for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Though several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, which have been dealt with in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, on account of certain subsequent developments, there may not be any necessity for this Court to adjudicate into the issues raised by the petitioner. This is so because, the petitioner/University has been taken over by the Government, pursuant to the Annamalai University Act, 2013 (Tamil Nadu Act, 20 of 2013) and from the date of commencement of the said Act, the petitioner/University established under the Annamalai University Act, 1928, shall be deemed to have been established and incorporated under the Act 20 of 2013. The entire administration of the University is now governed by the 2013 Act. Therefore, it is the Registrar or the Competent Authority, who is entitled to deal with subject matters under the 2013 Act should be the person, who has to prosecute the matter further.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court at the stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In response to the impugned notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 09.03.2006, stating that they had the benefit of exemption under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by notification dated 23.11.1946. However, the copy of such exemption has not been placed in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petitions. Therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate as to what is the effect of such exemption and whether it will endure in favour of the petitioner eternally. Prima facie it appears that even if such exemption was available, it may not have been an exemption for ever, more particularly, when the University has now been taken over by the Government pursuant to the Tamil Nadu Act, 20 of 2013.