9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 797 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment - maintainability of appeal - Held that - Admittedly, the original assessment order was passed on 27.12.2010 under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 11.7.2011, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal which are pending. During the pendency of the appeal, order under section 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction on certain issues. Further additions/disallownaces were made. The appeals filed before the Tribunal were partly allowed. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act vide notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2016 by respondent No.1. Final reassessment order was passed on 31.3.2016 under Section 143/147 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the sequence of facts as noticed above, we find that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 under sections 143/147 of the Act In view of above, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the final reassessment order. 3. Availability of alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act. 4. Applicability of precedents and principles of law regarding writ petitions when alternative remedies are available. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The petitioner sought the quashing of the notice dated 24.3.2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner filed detailed legal objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings on various grounds, arguing that the reassessment notice was invalid. 2. Validity of the reassessment proceedings and the final reassessment order: The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.3.2016, which disposed of the legal objections, and the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016 passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without providing adequate opportunity to make further submissions and were completed hastily within three days of receiving the order disposing of the legal objections. 3. Availability of alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act: The court emphasized that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal against the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016 under Sections 143/147 of the Act. The court cited several precedents, including Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., which established that where a statutory remedy is available, it must be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Applicability of precedents and principles of law regarding writ petitions when alternative remedies are available: The court referred to various judgments, including Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal and Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., to reiterate that the existence of an effective alternative remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The court noted that the Act provides a complete machinery for assessment/re-assessment of tax and obtaining relief against improper orders, and the petitioner should have availed this statutory remedy. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that all the pleas raised by the petitioner could be addressed before the appellate authority. The court granted the petitioner one month's time to file an appeal against the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016, ensuring that the appeal would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation if filed within the stipulated period. The court clarified that its observations should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the controversy.
|
