R. Subbiah, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent relating to his order bearing No.PA.ADWPJ3312K/NCC -2/MDU/15-16, dated 12.05.2015, and subsequent order dated 09.06.2015 bearing proceedings No.PAN.ADWPJ3312K/NCC-2/MDU/15-16, in pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 18.05.2015 and to quash the same, with consequential direction to the respondent to consider the petition filed under Section 220(3) and 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes by providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this writ petition, are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner is an assessee of income tax, having permanent account No. ADWPJ 3312 K/1(2)/MDU with the status as 'individual'. Original return of income was filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2012 for the assessment year 2012-2013 for the accounting period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, wherein the total income of the petitioner was furnished as Rs.4,91,680/- and agricultural income to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/-. After deducting rebate on agricultural income Rs.40,80,000/- and adding education cess, income tax was furnished by the petitioner as Rs.96,309/-. Further, advance tax amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid on 15.12.2011. Adding interest under Sections 234(B) and 234(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, net tax to the tune of Rs.78,150/- was paid under Section 140-A of the Income Tax Act,1961. However, notices under Section 143(2) dated 14.08.2013 and Section 142(1) dated 14.07.2014 of the Act 1961 were issued by the respondent to the petitioner under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS), requiring the petitioner to produce the books of accounts. On receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared on the dates of hearing before the respondent and produced necessary information and particulars. However, according to the petitioner, the respondent made a high pitched assessment in an arbitrary manner and biased mind, determining the income of the petitioner at Rs.59,91,680/-, by rejecting the petitioners claim of Agricultural Income and treating the same as regular income from undisclosed source.

2.2. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent/Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration cultivation of Jasmine and teak wood in Periakooda Kovil Village, Madurai District on a leased land from the petitioner's mother in Survey No.106 and 108 in an extent of 7.22 acres and to that effect evidences were produced by way of Patta, Adangal, Sales Bills and pesticides Bills and affidavit of petitioner's mother. Though necessary documents viz., Patta, Adangal in the name of the petitioner, Sale Bills, Pesticides Bills etc., were produced by the petitioner, the respondent/Assessing Officer did not take into consideration the same and made a high pitched assessment. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner proved ownership of land, leased land of his mother in Periakoodakovil Village on a total extent of 16.05 acres and that agricultural operations were carried on by the petitioner.

2.3. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent did not take into consideration the agricultural operations in Velampadi Village in S.No.405, 406 and 411 in an extent of 19-81 acres, in which Gloriosa Superba, Drumstick, and Coconut are cultivated by the petitioner as it is evident from Patta, Adangal, Lease Deed, Sale Bills, Payment of lease rent to one Mr.A.Balaguru. Even though the Bank Statement for above payments by cheques, Certificate of Deputy Director Horticulture regarding quantity of yield, VAO Certificate to the effect that the petitioner is cultivating the land, and pesticides Bills were produced by the petitioner, the respondent did not consider the same and brushed aside the evidence produced by the petitioner