2019 (2) TMI 1441 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - HELD THAT - We find that the disputed questions of fact have been sought to be raised in the writ petition. Further, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order(s). The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013 (6) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) elaborately considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. Keeping in view the availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order(s) and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue, we do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we dismiss the present writ petition by relegating the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him before the appropriate Forum, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to Assessment Order under Sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Validity of ex-parte Assessment Order due to lack of notice served on the petitioner.
3. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order(s) under the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Assessment Order under Sections 144/147, dated 19.12.2017, along with subsequent Orders under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Additionally, a prayer was made for the refund of adjusted refund processed for Assessment Year 2018-19 with interest.
2. The challenge to the Assessment Orders was based on the grounds of lack of notice served on the petitioner, rendering the ex-parte Assessment Order invalid. Legal precedents, including judgments from the Apex Court and Delhi High Court, were cited to support this contention.
3. The High Court analyzed the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the impugned order(s) under the Act. Referring to legal principles and judgments, the Court emphasized the rule of self-imposed limitation on entertaining writ petitions when an alternative remedy is available. The Court highlighted that the existence of an alternative remedy is a policy, convenience, and discretion-based rule, rather than a strict rule of law. The judgment elaborated on the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 and the necessity for the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The Court cited various legal cases to underline the importance of following the statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances and not bypassing it by invoking writ jurisdiction. Ultimately, considering the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal and the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies available before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the Court's decision based on the availability of an alternative remedy and established legal principles.