CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed former union minister Dayanidhi Maran’s petition difficult re-opening of his revenue tax evaluation for 2008-09 and 2009-10 by the I-T division based mostly on the CBI cost sheet within the Aircel Maxis deal case.
Justice S M Subramaniam mentioned the petitioner who held the excessive place of a Union Minister was obligation sure to reply to the division’s notice to show his innocence or in any other case.
Also Read | Ministers can use a number of phone connections: Dayanidhi Maran tells Madras High Court
Maran challenged the I-T division’s March 27, 2015 notice issued underneath Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for re-assessment of his revenue for 2008-09 and 2009-10 when he was the Telecom Minister.
Noting that he had raised objections to the notice, he additionally contended that the division had sought to re-open the matter six years after the evaluation citing the CBI cost sheet within the Aircel Maxis deal case.
The CBI has charged Maran with forcing Aircel proprietor C Sivasankaran into parting with his stake within the firm to Malaysia’s Maxis Communications Bhd when he was the Telecom minister.
Maran pointed to his discharge within the case by a CBI court docket in New Delhi on February 2 final yr in assist of his plea for quashing the I-T notice.
Dismissing Maran’s plea, the Judge mentioned the petition had been filed on the notice stage itself which might hamper all additional proceedings of the I-T division and it will possibly by no means be inspired by the courts.
Courts can’t interfere in a routine method in respect of the notice issued underneath Section 148 the Act, he mentioned including each time such allegations are raised against an assessee, who was holding a excessive place of Union Minister, the I-T division shall be allowed to probe the matter with all equity and by adopting an clever approach of investigation.
“It is left open to the petitioner to defend his case in the manner known to law and allow the officials to scrutinise the assessments based on new materials available and thereafter take a decision and pass assessment or reassessment orders by following the procedures contemplated under the I-T Act,” he mentioned in his order.
Concurring with the submissions of Additional Solicitor General G.
Rajagopalan that the petition can’t be entertained by the excessive court docket as treatment was accessible earlier than the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Judge mentioned the excessive court docket can’t usurp the ability of the appellate authorities in respect of the adjudication of the deserves and the demerits of the matter.
Complex details and circumstances have been to be adjudicated by producing paperwork and by adducing proof by events involved.
Judicial assessment against such proceedings was actually restricted, he mentioned.
The Judge additionally rejected the rivalry of Maran that notices had additionally been issued to his brother Kalanithi Maran of Sun group, Sun Direct and another relations when there was completely no proof of him having any connection with the corporate run by his brother.
The issuance of notices can’t be discovered fault with when the division has cause to imagine that the transaction warranted additional investigation and scrutiny.
The division might obtain info from many different sources and on receipt of such supplies or info, the authorities could also be able to reopen the evaluation and impose tax, the Judge mentioned.
This court docket has no hesitation to conclude that the Assessing Officer has obtained wider powers in respect of overlaying the escaped assessments for reopening the evaluation.
It was for the assessee to persuade the officer in respect of all such escaped assessments and submit the returns, he added.
The decide additionally dismissed comparable petitions filed by Sun Direct TV Pvt.
Limited, and South Asia FM Limited difficult I-T notices to them.
PTI CORR VS RT RT 10102017 NNNN