ID: F2J-C-2630 Court: Madras High Court Case number: W.P.No.23115 of 2002 Decision date: 2015-08-19 DISMISSED
Finin2min decision brief
Madras High Court ruling in W.P.No.23115 of 2002. Operative-order extract: In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Why this ruling matters
This page provides the complete searchable court text, source provenance and operative-order context for a current income-tax ruling. Application depends on the assessment year, statutory text and binding jurisdiction.
Editorial control: The complete court text below controls. Later appellate history is marked Check required and has not been inferred.
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Muthukrishnan vs The Income Tax Officer on 19 August, 2015
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.23115 of 2002
K.Muthukrishnan
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Income Tax Officer,
Circle-I, Erode Town, Erode.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-II, Coimbatore Circle,
67A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
3.The Deputy Director (Intelligence),
Income Tax Office, Circle-I,
Erode Town, Erode.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to proceedings in C.No.Misc./Tech/CIT-II/CBE/02-03 dated 19.06.2002 and to quash the above said proceedings and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to issue certified copy of the balance sheet(s) for the assessment year 1996-1997 to 2000-2001.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Murali Kumaran
For respondents : Mr.T.Promodkumar Chopda
ORDER
Challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 19.06.2002 in C.No.Misc/Tech/CIT-II/CBE/02-03 refusing to furnish certain informations sought for by the petitioner, he is now before this court with this writ petition. R. MAHADEVAN.J., kmk
2. When the writ petition came up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for in the writ petition has now become infructuous and, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
19.08.2015 kmk To
1.The Income Tax Officer, Circle-I, Erode Town, Erode.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Coimbatore Circle, 67A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.
3.The Deputy Director (Intelligence), Income Tax Office, Circle-I, Erode Town, Erode.
W.P.No.23115 of 2002
Practitioner verification checklist
Confirm the assessment year and the statutory version considered.
Separate the binding ratio from fact-specific findings and procedural directions.
Check territorial jurisdiction, appealability and any later stay, review or reversal.
Reconcile cited sections and monetary thresholds with the law applicable to the user’s period.
Questions answered
What did the court decide?
Madras High Court ruling in W.P.No.23115 of 2002. Operative-order extract: In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Which case and court does this page cover?
W.P.No.23115 of 2002, decided by Madras High Court on 2015-08-19.
Is the complete judgment available?
Yes. The complete searchable public court text appears on this page and in the downloadable local reference PDF.
What should be checked before relying on this ruling?
Verify the assessment year, applicable statutory text, territorial and appellate jurisdiction, and any later appeal, review, stay or contrary binding authority.