2018 (2) TMI 1350 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - non-service of Statutory Notice under Section 148 of the Act and non- grant of adequate opportunity to raise the objections - Held that - It cannot be believed that the proceedings initiated right in the Month of March 2016 followed by various notices throughout the period, on 29.03.2016, 02.06.2017, 12.07.2017, 11.10.2017 and 16.10.2017 followed by letter dated 07.11.2017, all have not been issued or served upon the petitioner-company. The stipulation in this regard in the quoted paras above in the impugned order, is a matter on record and this Court has no reason to disbelieve these facts and treat them as falsehood per se merely because the company wants to contend like this. Once an order has been passed against the assessee, the assessee is bound to take recourse to the appellate forums provided in the Act itself. There is a two tier appellate system under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. The first appeal lies before the CIT (Appeals) under Section 246 of the Act and second appeal lies before the ITAT under Section 253 of the Act. Thereafter, on the question of law, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 260- A of the Act on the substantial questions of law arising from the orders of the Tribunal. The comprehensive Code of Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for a complete mechanism for redressal of grievance of the assessees including the foreign companies and there is no special reason to allow the foreign companies to bypass these appellate forums to directly approach the constitutional Courts by way of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the reassessment orders which are ex-facie appealable under the provisions of the Act. No good reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and permit the petitioner-company to lay a challenge to the impugned reassessment order dated 18.12.2017 before this Court at this stage.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment order based on breach of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Malaysian company, challenged a reassessment order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax for A.Y. 2009-10, alleging non-service of statutory notice and lack of opportunity to raise objections. The impugned order stated notices were duly served on the petitioner, who claimed ignorance of these proceedings. The petitioner's counsel emphasized non-receipt of notices and requested more time to raise objections. The Court noted the petitioner's lack of response to multiple notices and emphasized the need for cooperation in tax proceedings. The petitioner's communication indicated efforts to comply with the proceedings but highlighted delays in obtaining a PAN number. The Court emphasized that foreign companies must be vigilant and cooperative with Indian tax authorities, subject to Indian Income Tax provisions. The judgment highlighted the necessity for foreign companies to challenge tax liability promptly and comply with Indian tax laws.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of non-receipt of notices, emphasizing the importance of timely objections and compliance with tax proceedings. It noted the petitioner's selective disclosure of communications and lack of complete facts. The judgment stressed the need for foreign companies to adhere to Indian tax laws and participate in assessment proceedings. The Court highlighted the comprehensive appellate system under the Income Tax Act, providing avenues for redressal of grievances. It concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for challenging the reassessment order directly in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found the writ petition devoid of merit and dismissed it without costs.