9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of the notice under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of challenge include lack of reasons to believe income escaped assessment, change of opinion, and unfair action based on claimed deduction. 3. Discretionary nature of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Disinclination to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction unless clear case of want of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petition challenged the validity of a notice under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued for the assessment year 1980-81. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer lacked reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and that the action was based on a change of opinion. Additionally, it was argued that the acceptance of the return under section 143(1)(a)(i) implied acceptance of the correctness of the return, as no action under section 143(2) was taken within six months. The petitioner also claimed unfairness in the Assessing Officer's action based on a claimed deduction related to travelling allowance. 2. The High Court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and should not be used as an alternative to statutory remedies. Courts are generally disinclined to intervene unless a clear case of want of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or patently illegal actions are demonstrated. In this case, the court found no such grounds established to justify intervention through a writ petition. 3. The court emphasized that the petitioner would have the opportunity to raise all arguments before the Assessing Officer during the assessment process. The Assessing Officer was expected to address the contentions raised in the writ petition and any other legal pleas presented by the petitioner in accordance with the law. The court directed the petitioner to pursue its arguments through the appropriate channels during the assessment proceedings. 4. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, concluding that no sufficient grounds were presented to warrant judicial intervention at that stage. The petitioner was advised to address its concerns and contentions before the Assessing Officer during the assessment process, ensuring that all legal arguments were duly considered and addressed within the framework of the law.
|
