2019 (9) TMI 476 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - invoking statutory remedy available - HELD THAT - We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition insofar as the challenge to the order dated 18.12.2018 is concerned. The petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy available to it by preferring its appeal against the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 before the CIT (A), and it shall be open to the petitioner to assail the issuance of notice u/s 148; the reasons for re-opening furnished by the AO; as well as the order dated 18.12.2018 disposing of the petitioner s objections to the re-opening of the objections u/s 148. Insofar as the petitioner s prayer that the respondent Department should lay down binding guidelines for proper examination of tax evasion complaints by field officers, prior to taking action on such complaints is concerned, in our view, the decision rendered in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. 2018 (1) TMI 942 - DELHI HIGH COURT lays down sufficient guidelines and the said decision is binding on all the Revenue Authorities. In respect of the grievance of the petitioner, that the order dated 18.12.2018 is contemptuous, since it has allegedly been passed in breach in Scan Holding (P) Ltd. (supra), it shall be open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to take appropriate proceedings in that respect independently.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance of judgment in W.P. (C) No. 9800/2015 regarding objections to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allegation of willful defiance of court's directions and contempt of court.
3. Proper examination of tax evasion complaints by field officers and the need for binding guidelines.

Compliance of Judgment in W.P. (C) No. 9800/2015:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including directions to file tax evasion complaints, quash certain notices, and initiate contempt proceedings. The court had previously decided W.P. (C) No. 9800/2015, setting aside an order and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. However, the petitioner alleged that the subsequent order did not address their objections, leading to non-compliance with the court's earlier judgment.

Allegation of Willful Defiance and Contempt of Court:
The petitioner claimed that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider their objections and failed to comply with the court's directions. The court declined to entertain the challenge to the order dated 18.12.2018, noting that the petitioner had already appealed against the assessment order. The court suggested that if the petitioner believed the order was contemptuous, they could pursue appropriate legal action independently.

Proper Examination of Tax Evasion Complaints and Guidelines:
The petitioner requested the respondent Department to establish binding guidelines for examining tax evasion complaints by field officers. The court held that the previous judgment provided adequate guidelines and was binding on all Revenue Authorities. It clarified that any grievances regarding contemptuous behavior could be addressed through separate legal proceedings. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's submissions and directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the pending appeal in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition based on the above considerations, highlighting the need for adherence to legal procedures and the availability of statutory remedies for addressing grievances related to tax assessments and court orders.