9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 740 - SC - Income TaxValidity of notice u/s 153C - Reply to notice not filed, instead writ challenging notice filed - High Court dismissed notice - Held that - at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the Assessing Authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court - High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act - Matter remitted back for filing of replies and procedure thereof - Following decision of Bellary Steels Alloys Ltd. v. CCT 2009 (8) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO 2001 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions. 2. Challenge against High Court judgment setting aside Show Cause Notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Entertaining a Writ Petition by the High Court against Show Cause Notices under Section 153C. 4. Exhaustion of alternate remedies before approaching the Writ Court. 5. Disposal of appeals challenging assessments and liability for tax and interest. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing Special Leave Petitions and granted leave in the case challenging the High Court's judgment regarding Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Authority issued the notices for reassessment based on documents seized during a search, leading to the High Court setting them aside. 2. The High Court examined the statutory scheme under Sections 153A, 153B, and 153C of the Act, 1961, concluding that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee, thus invalidating the notices. The Assessing Authority appealed against this decision, arguing that the Writ Petition should not have been entertained by the High Court. 3. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the Writ Court. It cited precedents where parties were directed to reply to show-cause notices before seeking judicial intervention. The Court highlighted that the assessee should have addressed grievances by replying to the notices instead of directly filing a Writ Petition. 4. The Court referenced cases where parties were advised to file replies to show-cause notices before pursuing legal action, emphasizing the need to follow statutory procedures. The assessee's immediate resort to the Writ jurisdiction without exhausting alternate remedies was deemed premature, leading to the High Court's decision being set aside. 5. Appeals challenging assessments and liability for tax and interest were disposed of based on findings by the Tribunal and High Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing opinions on the correctness of interpretations of Section 153C, leaving the matter open for future consideration in suitable cases. All appeals were concluded without costs, as no substantial legal questions necessitated the Court's intervention.
|
