2018 (1) TMI 1440 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non-granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner - scope of alternative remedy - Held that - We note that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act have not culminated in any order being passed. Admittedly, the Revenue has withdrawn the reopening notice. Prima facie we see no confusion on the part of the Petitioner, as prior to passing of the impugned order, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner and it was responded to. In any case the Petitioner s case that the reopening notice resulted in some misunderstanding is also an issue which could be agitated before Appellate Authority under the Act. Therefore, in view of efficacious alternative remedy being available under the Act, we see no reason to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this Petition.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without granting a personal hearing.
2. Dispute regarding parallel proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act and subsequent withdrawal of reopening notice.
3. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 29 December 2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16, on the grounds that it was passed without granting a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that certain details were furnished during the assessment year, leading to disputed questions of fact which could be addressed by the Appellate Authority. However, the court noted that the time for completing the regular assessment had not expired, and a notice under Section 143(2) had been issued prior to the impugned order. The court emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act for such grievances.

Issue 2:
Regarding the parallel proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, the court observed that these proceedings had not resulted in any order being passed, and the Revenue had subsequently withdrawn the reopening notice. The court found no confusion on the part of the petitioner, as a Show Cause Notice had been issued and responded to before the impugned order. The court held that any misunderstanding arising from the reopening notice could be addressed before the Appellate Authority under the Act.

Issue 3:
The court, considering the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act, declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, leaving all contentions open to be raised before the authorities under the Act, and made no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding lack of personal hearing and parallel proceedings under Section 148.