2015 (9) TMI 1242 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - maintainability of the writ petition - Held that - In the facts of the present case, where the jurisdiction of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was itself under challenge, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petition, in the said circumstances, would be maintainable. No interference is called for with such part of the order of the writ court challenged in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act and reopening of assessment for assessment year 2009-10. Maintainability of writ petition under extraordinary jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an intra court appeal challenging a part of the decision in a writ petition where the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 were contested. The initial writ petition was filed by the respondent company and was dismissed on merits, but the maintainability of the writ petition was decided in favor of the respondent and against the Revenue. The appeal challenges the latter part of the judgment dated 23.3.2015. The court heard arguments from both parties' counsels and concluded that there is no merit in the appeal. The court cited precedents where extraordinary jurisdiction is available for specific grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, absence of legal authority, and challenge to the validity of statutory provisions.

The court referenced the case law of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar Trade Marks and T T Pvt Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer to support the view that the availability of an alternate remedy under the Act does not bar the court from examining a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act if challenged on jurisdictional error. The court emphasized that the notice under section 148 is justiciable, as established in the case of N Govindaraju Vs Income Tax Officer, allowing it to be independently challenged. In the present case, where the jurisdiction of issuing the notice under section 148 was in dispute, the court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was maintainable in such circumstances.

The court concluded that no interference was warranted with the part of the order challenged in the appeal, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed accordingly. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the maintainability of writ petitions challenging notices under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional errors as a valid ground for such challenges.