2019 (3) TMI 1677 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - the assessment has been concluded and the petitioner has challenged the said assessment by filing an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals - HELD THAT - In the present case, the petitioner has already availed remedy of appeal by filing substantive appeal before Commissioner Appeals challenging the assessment order. The petitioner can raise all the grounds as raised in the present petition in the substantive appeal filed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of objection to notice for reopening assessment.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of the rejection of the objection to the notice for reopening the assessment in the present case. The petitioner, through its advocate, challenged the rejection of its objection. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the assessment had been concluded, and the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals challenging the assessment. The respondent referred to various judgments, including those of the Apex Court and the High Court, where parties had challenged orders without availing the remedy of appeal. However, in the current case, the petitioner had already filed a substantive appeal before the Commissioner Appeals, enabling them to raise all the grounds mentioned in the present petition during the appeal process.

The Court considered the precedents cited by both parties and noted that in cases where parties had not availed the remedy of appeal and directly challenged orders through writ petitions, the courts had entertained such petitions. However, in the present case, since the petitioner had already pursued the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals challenging the assessment order, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could raise all the grounds mentioned in the present petition during the substantive appeal filed before the Commissioner Appeals. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, ruling against the petitioner and ordering no costs to be incurred in the matter.