2014 (4) TMI 171 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of petition Appeal pending in the Tribunal Penalty proceedings - Held that - Assessee contended that the AO and other authorities are claiming that the petitioner s appeal against the penalty order dated 28.11.2013 has been dismissed/disposed of by the CIT(A) but copy of the order is yet to be received - the petitioner has got an alternative remedy to approach the ITAT thus, there is no need to interfere in the matter and the CIT(A) is directed to supply copy of the order passed in the penalty matter Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning Garnishee Notices for recovery of income tax, penalty, and interest. Denial of stay application by Assessing Officer. Alleged pre-emption of statutory appeals. Delay in receiving copy of appellate order.

Analysis:
The petitioner, M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., challenged Garnishee Notices dated 13.02.2014 and 20.03.2014 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for recovery of Rs.28,21,94,177/- towards income tax, penalty, and interest for the assessment year 2008-2009. The petitioner contended that despite pending appeals, orders were passed under various sections of the Income Tax Act, leading to the issuance of the impugned notices. The petitioner's stay application was rejected, and the notices were seen as an attempt to prevent the petitioner from pursuing statutory remedies. The petitioner sought early hearing for its appeal but approached the Court due to the second Garnishee notice. The petitioner claimed not to have received the order dismissing its appeal against the penalty, although this was not mentioned in the writ petition.

The Court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Considering this alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the Court declined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to provide a copy of the appellate order in the penalty matter within two days. This would enable the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal or any other suitable forum for further recourse. A direction for the expedited provision of the copy was given for prompt action.

This judgment highlights the importance of exhausting alternative remedies available to parties before seeking judicial intervention. The Court emphasized the significance of following due process and availing statutory avenues for redressal. The decision underscores the principle of allowing parties to pursue appropriate forums for resolution before resorting to court intervention. The directive for the timely supply of the appellate order aimed to facilitate the petitioner's access to further legal recourse and ensure procedural fairness in the adjudicatory process.