2021 (10) TMI 1355 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - whether reassessment was made on mere change of opinion and the income was subjected to double taxation? - HELD THAT - Re-assessment was made u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act upon notice being issued upon the petitioner. Although the petitioner raised various objections to the re-assessment notice no revised return was filed by the petitioner which according to the petitioner was due to technical glitches. However in course of re-assessment no such issue was canvassed before assessing officer. Be that as it may the assessing officer considered the objections raised by the petitioner-assessee and passed impugned assessment order. There is an alternative appellate remedy available before the CIT (Appeals). We are of the opinion none of the aforesaid exceptions arise in the facts of the present case. Petitioner-assessee was given repeated notices and adequate opportunity to represent his case before the assessing officer. Whether the Assessing Officer effectively dealt with the objections or not are questions falling within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus the order does not suffer either from inherent lack of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on a change of opinion and alleged double taxation.
2. Non-consideration of part payments made under the Income Declaration Scheme in the assessment order.
3. Adequacy of the impugned assessment order in addressing objections raised by the assessee.
4. Availability of alternative appellate remedy before the CIT (Appeals) and the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the re-assessment under Section 148 was unjustified as it was solely based on a change of opinion, resulting in alleged double taxation. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that part payments made under the Income Declaration Scheme were not credited. The assessment order was criticized for being cryptic and not addressing all objections raised by the assessee.

2. The Income Tax department, represented by senior counsel, argued that the order was appealable before the CIT (Appeals), implying that interference in writ jurisdiction was not warranted. Despite objections raised by the petitioner, no revised return was filed due to technical glitches, which were not raised during the re-assessment process. The assessing officer considered the objections but issued the impugned assessment order without revising the return.

3. The Court acknowledged that re-assessment was conducted under Section 148 upon issuing notice to the petitioner. While the petitioner raised objections, the failure to file a revised return was noted, attributed to technical issues. The assessing officer, however, did not address these technical glitches during the re-assessment process. The Court emphasized the availability of an alternative appellate remedy before the CIT (Appeals).

4. In determining the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction, the Court outlined specific circumstances where intervention may be warranted, such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of a statute. After evaluating the submissions and materials on record, the Court found no grounds to interfere in the present case. The petitioner was provided ample opportunities to present their case, and any concerns regarding the assessing officer's handling of objections fell within the appellate authority's purview.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy as per the law. The judgment highlighted that the assessing officer's treatment of objections was subject to review by the appellate authority and did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction.