IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SUNDAR, J.
Mohan Ravi v. ITO
W.P. Nos. 25239, 25241, 25242, 25244, 25245 & 25248 of 2019, WMP. Nos. 24807, 24808, 24812 to 24819, 24823 & WP. Nos. 24824 of 2019
26 August, 2019
Petitioners by: Raghav Rajeev Menon
Respondents by: J. Narayanaswamy and Senior Standing Counsel
Mr. Raghav Rajeev Menon, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr. J. Narayanaswami, learned Senior Standing counsel for respondent are before this Court.
2. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petitions are taken up, heard out and are being disposed of.
3. These six writ petitions were moved by way of lunch motion today, expressing imminence, immediacy and urgency. Request for lunch motion at half past ten in the forenoon was acceded to and the matters have been taken up.
4. It was submitted that these six writ petitions arise out of a common factual matrix and the subject matter arises under 'Income Tax Act, 1961' ('Income Tax Act' for brevity). It was submitted that only the assessment years in these six writ petitions are different and the six assessment years are 2012-13 to 2017-18 (six successive assessment years). Be that as it may, it was also submitted that the central theme/core issue in these writ petitions is the same. Therefore, this common order will govern these six writ petitions.