2025 (3) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of reopening notice - according to the petitioner the notice lacked jurisdiction and impugned notice was ex facie without jurisdiction and not deserving of any response - HELD THAT - Given the facts of the present case and considering the Petitioner s attitude of not responding to the notices no case is made to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and interdict further assessment proceedings. If the Petitioner is confident about his version he may possibly get relief in the assessment proceedings. In any event he can always question the assessment orders through the regular channels of appeals etc. available under the IT Act. Accordingly no case is made to entertain this Petition. In this matter an investigation into disputed facts would also be necessary. Even the limitation issue in the peculiar facts of this case would be a mixed question of law and fact. As noted earlier this is not a fit case to exercise our discretion and interdict the proceedings. Any such stalling of proceedings will impact the assessments of various assessees covered by the allegations in the communication dated 12 March 2021. This communication refers to the vast amount of monies stacked in Shri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd and the modus operandi adopted by various assesses in hoarding and laundering these amounts. We are satisfied that the Petitioner will have ample opportunities to defend himself during the assessment proceedings. Should the assessment proceedings prejudice the Petitioner then in the regular remedies provided under the IT Act question such assessment proceedings. We dismiss this Petition and vacate the ad interim relief for all the above reasons.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a case where the Petitioner challenged an order made under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act. The core legal questions revolved around whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to assist the Petitioner and whether the impugned order and notice were without jurisdiction. The Court analyzed the allegations against the Petitioner, the Petitioner's failure to respond to the show-cause notice, and the grounds for challenging the impugned notice.The Court found that the Petitioner's failure to respond to the notice based on perceived lack of jurisdiction was not commendable, as the purpose of issuing a notice is to allow the assessee to respond. The impugned order suggested that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, justifying the issuance of the notice. The Court refrained from delving into jurisdiction and limitation issues at that stage to avoid prejudicing the Petitioner during assessment proceedings.The Court emphasized that the Petitioner's non-response to notices and lack of cooperation did not warrant the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to halt assessment proceedings. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner could challenge assessment orders through regular channels of appeal available under the IT Act. The Respondents also cited a previous case with similar facts where the petition was dismissed, further supporting the decision not to entertain the current petition.The Court noted that investigating disputed facts and addressing the limitation issue would be necessary, indicating that stalling proceedings would not be in the public interest. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner would have opportunities to defend during assessment proceedings and question them through statutory remedies if prejudiced. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Petition, vacated any interim relief, and left all contentions open to be raised during assessment proceedings and statutory remedies under the IT Act.In summary, the Court declined to intervene in the assessment proceedings, citing the Petitioner's lack of response to notices, the seriousness of the allegations, and the availability of statutory remedies for challenging assessment orders. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the assessment process to proceed and dismissed the Petition without costs, leaving all parties the opportunity to raise contentions during assessment proceedings and statutory remedies.