9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. Analysis: The writ petitions sought to quash the assessment orders for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-I(2), Chennai. The petitioner, a company registered in Karnataka with its office in Bangalore, objected to the reopening of the assessments under section 148 without following the prescribed procedures under section 143(2). The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to assess them, as the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, had determined the jurisdiction to be limited to companies registered in Madras. The petitioner contended that the assessment was conducted without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner further claimed that the assessment was based on statements allegedly made by individuals not employed by the company, and these statements were not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent's actions were in violation of the Income-tax Act and lacked jurisdiction over a company registered in Bangalore. Despite acknowledging the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act, the petitioner's counsel pressed for the quashing of the orders due to the lack of jurisdiction. The Revenue, represented by the standing counsel, argued that the petitioner had not availed themselves of the opportunity to defend their case adequately. The standing counsel highlighted that the petitioner did not file a return in response to the notice under section 148 and that the assessment was completed based on available records. It was emphasized that the petitioner, along with other group companies, had claimed benefits under section 80-I and had not cooperated effectively during the assessment proceedings. The court agreed with the Revenue's submissions, noting that the issues raised in the writ petitions were considered by the respondent during the assessment process. The court held that since the matters required factual investigation, including the issue of jurisdiction, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting the court's intervention. Citing a previous decision, the court emphasized the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy through the appellate process. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to appeal within thirty days while closing the related motions.
|
