1993 (7) TMI 69 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reassessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1982-83 based on bonus payment exceeding the limit under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
2. Appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and subsequent appeal by Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Application for rectification of the Tribunal's order and subsequent dismissal.
4. Application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for referring the question of law to the High Court.
5. Issuance of notice of demand and show-cause notice under section 221 of the Act.
6. Writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of carpets, was reassessed for the assessment year 1982-83 due to bonus payment exceeding the permissible limit under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, permitting a bonus payment at a rate of 20 percent. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, through its order dated August 21, 1992, disallowed a deduction of Rs. 1,28,107 paid as bonus to workmen. The petitioner then sought rectification of this order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 3, 1993. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under section 256(1) of the Act to refer the question of law to the High Court. A notice of demand was issued, followed by a show-cause notice for non-payment of tax and interest. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the Tribunal's order and consequential notices.

The High Court, upon hearing both parties, declined to interfere in the matter. It was established that pursuing an alternative remedy, such as an application under section 256(1) of the Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, precludes the High Court from intervening in writ proceedings unless under exceptional circumstances. The petitioner argued that the remedy under section 256(1) was not as efficacious since the Tribunal lacked the power to grant interim orders. However, the Court clarified that the Tribunal retains its appellate power during such applications and possesses the authority to grant stay in appropriate cases. Even if an application for interim relief is denied, the assessee can approach the High Court under articles 226 and 227 if the Tribunal's decision is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition due to the availability of an alternative legal remedy for the petitioner.