2016 (10) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - seeking to quash the ex part best judgment assessment - Held that - On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is seen that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) has been received by the petitioner, and he has filed objections, and thereafter, his Authorized representative, who is a Chartered Accountant, appeared before the Assessing Officer, and only after hearing him, the assessment has been completed. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned orders, he has to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority, and no grounds have been made out to bypass such remedy. After the above order was dictated, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said submission is placed on record. Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex parte best judgment assessment order challenge for AY 2008-09
2. Order of attachment challenge
3. Challenge to order under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.33540 of 2016 to challenge the ex parte best judgment assessment order passed by the first respondent under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09. The petitioner sought to quash the said assessment order dated 25.01.2016 and the consequential order dated 24.05.2016. The petitioner's counsel argued that the assessment was ex parte, but upon review, it was found that the petitioner had received notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, filed objections, and had representation by a Chartered Accountant during the assessment process. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal before the Appellate Authority if aggrieved, and as no grounds were presented to bypass this remedy, the Writ Petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies under the Act.

2. In Writ Petition No.33541 of 2016, the petitioner sought to quash the order of attachment issued by the second respondent on 18.07.2016. The details of the attachment order were not explicitly mentioned in the summary provided.

3. Writ Petition No.33542 of 2016 was filed to challenge the order passed by the first respondent under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09, dated 29.07.2016. The specific grounds for challenging this order were not detailed in the summary. The judgment did not provide a separate analysis or outcome for this specific issue, indicating that it might have been addressed in conjunction with the overall decision on the maintainability of the Writ Petitions.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the ex parte best judgment assessment order for AY 2008-09 and the order of attachment, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized the availability of the appeal process before the Appellate Authority for addressing grievances related to the assessment, highlighting the importance of following due process in tax matters.