2020-VIL-484-MAD-DT

MADRAS HIGH COURT

W.P.Nos.14218 & 14219 of 2018 And W.M.P.Nos.16789 & 16790 of 2018

Date: 29.01.2020

KANDATHIL M. MAMMEN, ARUN MAMMEN

Vs

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1) , CHENNAI

For Petitioner: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar
For Respondent: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel

BENCH

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent.

2. In these Writ Petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the impugned notices dated 28.03.2018 bearing reference No.ADFPA4665H/2017-18, and AADPM7707R/2017-18 respectively issued under Section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and the summonses dated 18.05.2018 under Section 8 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.

3. The respondent has filed the counter affidavits. In paragraph No.3 of both the counter affidavits, it has been stated as follows:-

3. I submit that as per the Notification issued by the CBDT, the respondent is not having jurisdiction to issue notice and proceed under the said Act and therefore the proceedings are void ab intio and infructuous. The competent authority [DDIT (Inv), Unit-2(3), Chennai] has already issued notices to the petitioner and thus the writ petition has to be dismissed.

4. In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. At the same time, liberty is given to the respondent to proceed in accordance with the notices issued by the Competent Authority. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.