9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Period of limitation for assessment under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Allegation of mala fides in the assessment order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The primary issue was whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable given the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner argued that the writ jurisdiction was not barred due to an apparent error on the face of the record regarding the limitation period. However, the court held that the Income-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment and relief, and the petitioner had already availed of this remedy by appealing to the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal. The court cited several precedents, including *C. A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 425 (SC)* and *Shivram Podday v. ITO [1964] 51 ITR 823 (SC)*, to support the view that points of limitation should be addressed by the appellate authority rather than through writ jurisdiction. 2. Period of Limitation: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was barred by limitation under Section 153(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, arguing that the period of limitation should be excluded due to a pending application before the Settlement Commission under Section 245C. The court examined Section 153 and Explanation I, clause (v), which deals with the exclusion of time during which an application is pending before the Settlement Commission. The court concluded that the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is not fettered by a pending application under Section 245C, as these proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings. The court referenced *T. B. Hanumantharaj v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 414 (Mad)* to support the view that the mere filing of an application under Section 245C does not extend the limitation period for assessment. 3. Allegation of Mala Fides: The petitioner alleged that the assessment order was mala fide, as it was passed by the same officer who conducted the raid and despite objections to the transfer of the case. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the petitioner's non-cooperation and filing of a "nil" return without disclosing income justified the officer's actions. The court held that the appellate authority could rectify any mala fide actions if proven. The court emphasized that the enormity of the tax assessed (nearly Rs. 8 crores) did not influence its decision on the legal issues. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies under the Income-tax Act. The interim injunction was vacated, and the court found no grounds for continuing the writ petition based on the issues of limitation and mala fides. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the relevant legal provisions and precedents.
|
