2023 (6) TMI 285 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 144B - petitioner's claim is that they have not been served with the prior notice and have been prevented them from putting forth their case - HELD THAT - This statement appears to be incorrect in the light of the proof of mail communications submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent where every proceedings has been communicated under the cover of a letter/e- mail, to which the orders were attached. Therefore, prima facie, the contention of the appellant appears to be incorrect. As per petitioner they have not been served with the provisions of Section 144 (B) (7) relating to the real time alert - Section 144 (B) (10) defining a real time alert. Therefore, the real time alerts could be in the form of a SMS or an update on the mobile app or by way of an E-Mail to the registered e-mail address. In the instant case, the documents filed on the side of the respondents relating to the proof of mail communication would show substantial compliance of this rule. Be that as it may, as pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal u/s 246(A) of the Income Tax Act. A reading of the impugned order would show that it is a detailed speaking order and the petitioner has to only challenge the same by way of an appeal and not by invoking an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Present writ petition stands dismissed with a direction to the petition to approach the appellate authority.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenge to an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21, alleging lack of opportunity to present case, failure to follow procedure under Section 144(B), and imposition of penalty under Section 270(A).

Summary of Judgment:

Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order dated 21.09.2022, alleging lack of opportunity to present their case. The petitioner had filed its return of income and responded to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. However, the petitioner claimed they were not given a chance to explain certain discrepancies in the assessment order, particularly regarding alleged sundry creditors. The petitioner sought to quash the order primarily on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to provide documentary evidence.

Procedure under Section 144(B):
The petitioner contended that the procedure under Section 144(B) had not been followed, as they were not given a real-time alert as required. The petitioner argued that they were not informed about subsequent notices and were unaware of the impugned assessment order until a penalty notice was issued. The petitioner emphasized the importance of being provided with a real-time alert as per the statutory requirements.

Court's Decision:
Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner's claim of not being served with prior notice appeared incorrect based on proof of mail communications submitted by the respondent. The Court also acknowledged the importance of real-time alerts under Section 144(B) for effective communication during assessment proceedings. However, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for redressal. The appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of filing. The Court emphasized that the detailed assessment order could be challenged through the appropriate appeal process rather than invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.