2022 (4) TMI 1470 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of appeal against Faceless assessment order u/s 144B - scope of alternate remedy - petitioner argued that order impugned has been passed even without supplying the draft assessment order therefore, the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - At the outset, since the alternative efficacious remedy under Sections 246-A, 254 260A of the Act, 1961 is available to the petitioner we therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition at such a pre-matured stage. However, the petitioner is granted 3 weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the said authorities and, in turn, the said authorities shall consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment Order and Demand Notice challenged under Sections 147 and 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of draft assessment order.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition directly filed before the High Court without exhausting alternative remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260A of the Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order and Demand Notice issued under Sections 147 and 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was passed without considering the petitioner's replies and without supplying the draft assessment order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on these grounds.

2. In response, the counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 contended that the draft assessment order had been supplied to the petitioner, contradicting the petitioner's claim. The respondents' counsel argued that the impugned assessment order was appealable under Section 246-A of the Act, 1961 before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254. The counsel further highlighted the availability of a remedy to file an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, 1961, making the direct writ petition before the High Court premature.

3. After hearing both parties, the court noted the availability of alternative remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260A of the Act, 1961 for the petitioner. The court found the writ petition premature and not maintainable at that stage. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner three weeks to appeal before the appropriate authorities, emphasizing that the authorities should decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations.