2024 (3) TMI 213 - HC - Income Tax

Faceless assessment scheme - Extraordinary circumstance to intervene with the assessment order - specific grounds raised in these writ appeals on the side of the appellant are that the order of assessment proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme and in view of the observation that the appellant was not entitled to long term capital loss, the order has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice, thereby violating Section 144B(1)(xii) - HELD THAT - As seen that the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, held that the matter may be pursued in the statutory appeal which was filed by the appellant before the appellate authority. Considering all, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the appellate authority to take into account the above specific grounds raised by the appellant while considering the appellant's appeal, which was filed on 27.01.2023 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves challenging a common order dismissing writ petitions regarding an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the grounds of violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction, with a focus on extraordinary circumstances for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: Violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction:
The appellant contended that the assessment order proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme, going beyond the scope of the show cause notice and violating Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was argued that the impugned notice failed to provide for the refund the appellant was entitled to, and both the assessment order and show cause notice were issued without jurisdiction. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds that a new variation cannot be made once a notice proposing variation is issued. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the statutory appeal filed by the appellant should be pursued, but the appellant stressed that the violation of Section 144B and lack of jurisdiction constituted extraordinary circumstances necessitating intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Failure to address grounds raised by the appellant:
The appellant raised specific grounds in the writ appeals, highlighting the violation of Section 144B(1)(xii), issuance of the show cause notice against the provisions of the Act, and the authority's failure to follow established practices regarding variations in the final order. The appellant argued that the learned Judge did not consider these aspects, along with relevant case laws and oral submissions during the hearing of the writ petitions. The appellant emphasized that the assessment order exceeding the proposed variations and violating natural justice required a writ petition as an efficacious remedy, which was dismissed by the learned Judge.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Madras, in a common judgment, addressed the challenges to a common order dismissing writ petitions related to an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised concerns regarding the violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction, contending that the assessment order went beyond the proposed variations and failed to consider the appellant's entitlement to a refund. The Court noted that the learned Judge had dismissed the writ petitions, suggesting the pursuit of statutory appeal, but the appellant argued for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to extraordinary circumstances. After careful consideration, the Court directed the appellate authority to review the specific grounds raised by the appellant and make a decision within twelve weeks, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issues raised in the appeal. Consequently, the writ appeals were disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.