2019 (6) TMI 1240 - HC - Income Tax

Alternate remedy - non assessment of income of the petitioner as same derived from the agriculture - benefit of the section 10(1) - HELD THAT - Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hence, present petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Perusal of the impugned assessment year reveals that the assessee neither has filed his return of income nor has filed any written submission. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not be permitted to abandon or by pass that remedy and invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when he had an efficacious and adequate remedy open to him by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is available under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment order challenge seeking quashing of assessment order and consequential demand notice.
3. Mandamus relief sought to prevent assessment of income derived from agriculture.
4. Invocation of Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act for benefit.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226:
The respondent's counsel contended that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the petitioner had not filed a return of income or any written submission in response to the impugned assessment. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not bypass the available remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and directly invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner sought reliefs including quashing the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 and the consequential demand notice. However, the court, considering the lack of compliance by the assessee in filing the return of income or any written submission, dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to pursue the appropriate remedy available under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 3: Mandamus Relief for Agricultural Income:
Another relief sought by the petitioner was a mandamus to prevent the assessment of income derived from agriculture. However, the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition encompassed this relief as well. The petitioner was advised to seek redressal through the statutory remedy provided under the Income Tax Act.

Issue 4: Invocation of Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner aimed to avail the benefit of Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Nevertheless, the court's ruling dismissing the writ petition implied that the petitioner should utilize the appropriate remedy under the Income Tax Act for any such claims. No costs were awarded in this judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court of Uttrakhand dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures before approaching the court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.