2008 (2) TMI 169 - HC - Income Tax

Dept. overlooked the documentary evidence (furnished by assessee to substantiate the agricultural income) & refused to admit the said agricultural income merely based on statement of third party - opportunity to cross-examine that third party not given to assessee - violation of principles of natural justice on face of record even if alternative remedy was available to assessee, writ petition against the order is maintainable

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in assessment order for the assessment year 2004-2005.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ appeal filed against the order of a learned single Judge who refused to quash an assessment order dated 29.12.2006 made under 143(3) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2004-2005. The learned Judge's decision was based on the availability of an alternative statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The general rule is not to entertain writ petitions when an effective alternative remedy exists, as established in various cases. However, exceptions to this rule include situations where fundamental rights enforcement, failure of natural justice principles, or challenges to jurisdiction or the vires of an Act are involved, as stated by the Apex Court in Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In this case, the failure of natural justice is highlighted as the respondent-department refused to admit the agricultural income of the appellant for the assessment year 2004-2005 based on a statement from the Village Administrative Officer, ignoring substantial evidence provided by the appellant to support the agricultural activity.

The appellant had furnished documentary evidence to substantiate agricultural income amounting to Rs.11,32,232.42 for the assessment year 2004-2005. Despite this, the assessing authority disregarded the evidence and rejected the agricultural income solely based on a statement obtained from the Village Administrative Officer without giving the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine. The absence of the appellant during the statement's collection raises concerns about the violation of natural justice principles, potentially vitiating the assessment order. The Court acknowledged the appellant's argument that obtaining a statement from the Village Administrative Officer without allowing cross-examination constitutes a violation of natural justice, which was not adequately considered by the learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition citing alternative remedies.

The Court found a glaring violation of natural justice principles evident in the records, which was not properly appreciated by the learned single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal was allowed, the order of the single Judge was set aside, and the impugned assessment order was quashed. No costs were awarded, and the connected M.P.No.1/2007 was closed, concluding the judgment.