2019 (7) TMI 1694 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - Reopening based on some information collected by way of survey under section 133A - learned single judge observed that, it was a matter which could be effectively challenged by approaching the statutory authority - HELD THAT - Matter involves some fact finding exercise and the same can be effectively prosecuted before the competent authority under the statute, which cannot be a matter for discussion and finalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. No irregularity, much less any illegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the learned single judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. We have not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case. It is always open for the appellant to establish the merit of the case before the statutory authority, based on the facts and the relevant provisions of law.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal condonation, challenge to reassessment proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961, interpretation of single judge's verdict, jurisdiction of High Court under article 226.

Delay in Filing Appeal Condonation:
The judgment addressed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, where a delay of 35 days was condoned for reasons mentioned in the application. The appeal was then heard finally after the delay was accepted.

Challenge to Reassessment Proceedings:
The appeal challenged the verdict of the learned single judge regarding reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant had submitted necessary returns for assessment year 2013-14, but reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from a survey under section 133A, leading to a writ petition by the assessee.

Interpretation of Single Judge's Verdict:
The learned single judge had declined interference with the challenge raised regarding the reassessment proceedings, stating that it could be effectively challenged by approaching the statutory authority. The appellant argued against this, emphasizing that the tax had already been paid, and authorities should have considered this aspect.

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226:
The High Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the matter involved a fact-finding exercise better suited for the competent authority under the statute. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the discretionary jurisdiction of the court under article 226 of the Constitution of India was not appropriate for finalizing such matters.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned single judge. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and emphasized the appellant's right to establish the case before the statutory authority. The issue of potential double taxation, raised by the appellant, was directed to be considered and answered by the competent authority during the proceedings.