9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1248 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Non filling of objection with the AO prior to the filing the present writ petition - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has not followed the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT prior to the filing of present writ petition. It is pertinent to mention that in the said judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if an assessee is aggrieved by a reassessment notice, he is entitled to file objections before the Assessing Officer, who is bound to dispose of the same by way of a speaking order. Consequently, this Court is of the view that since the alternative effective remedy has not been resorted to, the present writ petition is not maintainable. This Court is of the view that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In any event, it is not open to a High Court to distinguish a judgment of the Apex Court especially when the latter is clear and categorical. Consequently, this Court is in agreement with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue that the present writ petition is premature. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all its objections before the Assessing Officer in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra).
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without filing objections with Assessing Officer. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the sanction for the notice was granted without proper consideration and opportunity of hearing. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, citing the petitioner's failure to file objections with the Assessing Officer before approaching the court, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer. In response, the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Gujarat High Court to argue that in certain circumstances, filing objections may not be necessary. However, the court held that the petitioner should have followed the procedure outlined in the Supreme Court judgment before filing the writ petition. The court determined that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner did not exhaust the alternative remedy of filing objections with the Assessing Officer as required by the Supreme Court judgment. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have followed the procedure laid down in the GKN Driveshafts case before approaching the court. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner's attempt to rely on the Gujarat High Court judgment, stating that a High Court cannot distinguish a clear and categorical judgment of the Apex Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to raise objections before the Assessing Officer in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. In conclusion, the High Court held that the petitioner's failure to file objections with the Assessing Officer before challenging the notice under Section 148 rendered the writ petition premature and not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure outlined in the relevant Supreme Court judgment before seeking judicial intervention.
|
