2024 (5) TMI 1025 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s 147 r/w 144 r/w 144B - primary contention was the response to the show-cause notice, where the petitioner claimed to have filed a partial response, disputed by the respondents initially - HELD THAT - At this stage without making any observation on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to consider the present writ petition on the strength of ratio of Whirlpool Corporation 1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT , Magadh Sugar Energy Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT and Dinesh Kumar Chhaganbhai Nandani 2023 (6) TMI 935 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . There is no complete bar in entertaining the writ petition in spite of existence of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal. Since the order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the exception to Rule of alternate remedy arises in terms of circumstances enumerated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Magadh Sugar Energy Ltd. 2021 (10) TMI 691 - SUPREME COURT . For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order, however with the liberty to the assessing officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The assessee would also be at liberty to supplement to his partial reply by way of detailed reply within one week from today.

Summary

Issues involved: Writ petition against order u/s 147 read with 144 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, consideration of response to show-cause notice, violation of principle of natural justice.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with 144 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention was the response to the show-cause notice, where the petitioner claimed to have filed a partial response, disputed by the respondents initially. The court noted the filing of response with acknowledgment number and the subsequent responses from both parties. The assessing officer concluded that the assessee failed to provide proper explanation regarding purchases from unregistered entities, leading to unexplained purchase consideration. The court, without delving into the merits of the case, considered the petition based on legal precedents allowing writ petitions despite alternate statutory remedies. Due to the violation of the principle of natural justice, the impugned order was quashed with liberty given to the assessing officer to pass a fresh order within one month, and the assessee was allowed to supplement their reply within one week. The petition was disposed of accordingly.