9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1423 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reassessment order passed without giving sufficient time to the petitioner - High Court power to investigate existence of one of the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 34 - HELD THAT - Petitioner has challenged the assessment order and further the arguments raised in the present writ petition can be ably considered by examining the record. Considering that factual aspects are involved, this Court would refrain from entering into a fishing enquiry while examining a case under writ jurisdiction. We also notice that the judgment cited by the learned counsel of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd 1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT is with regard to the issue where the concerned Income Tax Officer acted without jurisdiction and in these circumstances Supreme Court held that the writ Court may entertain a plea challenging such assessments done without jurisdiction In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as the recent pronouncements, this Court refrains from entertaining the present writ petition. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that the period for filing of appeal has expired, however, in the circumstances, the appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal on merit if it is filed within a period of 15 days subject to making pre-deposits if required in law.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of time given by Assessing Officer (AO) for reply under Section 148. 3. Entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 bypassing statutory remedies. 4. Maintainability of writ petitions in tax matters with available statutory remedies. 5. Dismissal of writ petition and direction for availing alternate remedies. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The petitioner argued based on the judgment in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. case that the High Court can investigate the conditions for exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the respondents relied on judgments in The State of Maharashtra and others v. Greatship (India) Limited and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited to argue that the availability of alternate statutory remedies is a valid reason to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under constitutional provisions. Issue 2: Adequacy of time given by Assessing Officer (AO) for reply under Section 148 The petitioner contended that the AO did not provide sufficient time for a reply under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Despite the petitioner filing a reply, it was not considered before the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 was passed. Issue 3: Entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 bypassing statutory remedies The High Court found that the petitioner challenged the assessment order and that the arguments raised could be considered by examining the record. It refrained from engaging in a fishing inquiry under writ jurisdiction, citing the need to avoid bypassing statutory remedies unless the Income Tax Officer acted without jurisdiction. Issue 4: Maintainability of writ petitions in tax matters with available statutory remedies Referring to the judgment in The State of Maharashtra case, it was emphasized that when an alternate remedy is available, judicial prudence dictates refraining from exercising jurisdiction under constitutional provisions. The court criticized the High Court for entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. Issue 5: Dismissal of writ petition and direction for availing alternate remedies In line with recent pronouncements and precedents, the Court dismissed the present writ petition, directing the petitioner to avail themselves of the alternate remedy available before the competent authority in accordance with the law. The appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merit if filed within 15 days, subject to any required pre-deposits. This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the Court's reasoning behind dismissing the writ petition and emphasizing the importance of availing statutory remedies in tax matters.
|
