2017 (2) TMI 458 - HC - Income Tax

Statutory remedy of appeals available - Held that - Based on the communications that are available on record, even the question with regard to jurisdiction of respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 to conduct the assessment proceedings is a disputed question of fact and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case where from the face of the record and on the admitted position, the jurisdiction exercised by the assessing officer can be termed to be illegal or without jurisdiction. On the contrary, it is a case where even the jurisdiction available to the assessing officer is in dispute. That being so when a three tire remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, it is not appropriate for a writ Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in such case and make indulgence when the petitioner can very well ventilate all these grievances before the appellate Authority when the appeals can be filed as indicated herein above.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging jurisdiction of assessing officer | Bypassing statutory remedy of appeals | Assessment order without jurisdiction | Efficacy of appeal remedy | Disputed question of fact regarding jurisdiction | Extraordinary jurisdiction of writ court

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition directly challenging an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-2015, bypassing the statutory remedy of appeals available. The petitioner contended that the assessment was done by an incompetent person, usurping power, making the entire assessment order without jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that due to the jurisdiction conferred on another Income Tax Officer, the statutory remedy of appeal was not availed. The respondents clarified that the jurisdiction exercised by the Assessing Officer was in accordance with the conferral of jurisdiction as per the PAN ordered by the competent authority. The respondents argued that there was no error in jurisdiction exercised by the Assessing Officer.

After considering the contentions of both parties, the Court found that the question of jurisdiction of the assessing officers was a disputed question of fact. The Court noted that even the jurisdiction available to the assessing officer was in dispute. Given the availability of a three-tier remedy of appeal, the Court held that it was not appropriate for a writ court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in such a case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could ventilate all grievances before the appellate authority through the appeals process. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the remedy available by filing an appeal.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, emphasizing the availability of the statutory remedy of appeals for the petitioner to address the disputed questions of fact regarding jurisdiction. The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter, highlighting the importance of following the prescribed appellate process for addressing grievances related to assessment orders.