2024 (12) TMI 1272 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reassessment u/s 147 - applicability of Section 151 as the sanction has not been granted by the appropriate authority as specified - HELD THAT - Once the petitioner has availed of an alternate remedy as provided under the Income Tax Act, namely of a substantive appeal being filed, and if the assessment order as also the notices issued to the petitioner prior thereto u/s 148A and u/s 148 are contrary to the substantive provisions of Section 151A and Section 151 of the Act, as interpreted by this Court in Hexaware 2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the Appellate Authority as also the Revisionary Authority being bound by the said decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, need to consider such legal position. Thus, the petitioner is not precluded from raising all such contentions, as raised before us in the present proceedings, before the said authority. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the proceedings which are pending before the CIT(A) as also the Revisionary proceedings, be decided considering the contentions of the petitioner namely as to whether the impugned assessment order as also the notice under Section 148 of the Act is illegal when tested on the law as declared by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. ORDER - The petitioner shall pursue the proceedings before the CIT(A) against the impugned assessment order as also the proceedings before the Revisionary Authority. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions in regard to the illegality of the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148, in the light of the decisions of this Court in Hexaware case (supra). Till the proceeding before the Appellate Authority or Revisionary Authority are decided, the impugned assessment order shall remain stayed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to multiple notices and orders under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking various reliefs, including quashing of multiple notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders and notices were contrary to specific provisions of the Act and cited relevant case law to support their position.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the impugned order and notices lacked the necessary sanction from the appropriate authority as required by the law. Despite having filed an appeal and a review application, the petitioner approached the High Court due to the precedents set by previous court decisions on similar matters.

On the other hand, the revenue's counsel argued that the petitioner had already availed of an alternate statutory remedy by filing an appeal and should not have invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. The revenue's position was that the appellate and revisionary authorities should consider the legal positions established by the court's previous decisions.

The High Court acknowledged the arguments presented by both parties. It emphasized that once an alternate statutory remedy is pursued, the appellate and revisionary authorities must consider the legal positions established by the court in previous decisions. The court noted that entertaining writ petitions in such circumstances would burden the court unnecessarily.

Ultimately, the High Court decided not to entertain the present proceedings challenging the assessment order, as an appeal was already pending. However, the court recognized the petitioner's contention regarding the legality of the impugned order and notices and ordered that the assessment order would remain stayed until the appellate and revisionary proceedings are concluded. The court directed the petitioner to pursue the proceedings before the appellate and revisionary authorities and kept all contentions open for consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition with the above order, emphasizing that the petitioner should continue with the pending proceedings before the appropriate authorities and raising contentions based on the court's previous decisions.