2003 (5) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Statutory remedy - notices issued under section 148 income escaping assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) - the petitioner has chosen to approach this court directly by passing the statutory authorities - The hierarchy of authorities provided under the Income-tax Act will give effective remedy to the petitioner. The powers of the appellate authority are coterminous with those of the original authority Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable against the notices issued under section 148 based on the belief that certain income has escaped assessment - In view of the above position, there is no justification for this court to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its power under article 226 of the Constitution of India - Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed in limine without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy available to it.

Issues:
1. Direct approach to the High Court bypassing statutory authorities.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment orders.
3. Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) post the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2001.
4. Justification for directly approaching the High Court.
5. Jurisdictional error and the scope of interference by the High Court under article 226.
6. Applicability of the hierarchy of authorities under the Income-tax Act for effective remedy.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a company under the Companies Act, felt aggrieved by assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under sections 147 and 143(3) for the years 1996-97 to 2001-02. Despite statutory remedies available through appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner directly approached the High Court, justifying it based on alleged violations of natural justice and jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner was the violation of natural justice in the assessment process. Notices under section 148 were issued without communicating the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, hindering the petitioner's ability to raise objections effectively. Additionally, materials used in assessment were not disclosed, leading to the claim that the orders were passed in gross violation of natural justice principles.

3. Post the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, the petitioner argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power to remand cases to the Assessing Officer. This, combined with the alleged violations of natural justice, left the petitioner without an effective remedy, as contended.

4. The petitioner justified the direct approach to the High Court citing decisions of higher courts allowing interference if the Assessing Officer's actions contravene the Income-tax Act or principles of natural justice. However, the Revenue argued that the hierarchy of authorities under the Act provided an efficacious alternative remedy, making direct recourse to the High Court unjustified.

5. The High Court deliberated on the jurisdictional error and the scope of interference under article 226. Citing precedents, it emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court directly, to avoid overburdening the judicial system and to preserve the court's time for matters within its exclusive competence.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the original petition, emphasizing that the hierarchy of authorities under the Income-tax Act provided an effective remedy to the petitioner. The powers of the appellate authority were deemed sufficient to address all grievances, making direct interference by the High Court under article 226 unnecessary in this case.

← Previous Next →