2017 (2) TMI 341 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - statutory remedy - Held that - Except for contending that the loose papers and the entries made in the loose papers cannot be treated as evidence to reopen the assessment, we find that in the assessment order detailed analysis of the various aspects of the matter has been done and the assessment has been completed. That being so, at this stage when the assessment is already over after notice under Section 148 was issued and when proceedings held under Section 147 has attained finality in view of the assessment order made vide Annexure P-25 on 30.12.2016, it is not appropriate for this Court to go into various aspects of the matter and entertain the writ petition, merely because in some other case the writ petition is pending consideration. In the present case, once we find that a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner it is not appropriate to take any indulgence in the matter bypassing the statutory remedy available.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment order under Article 226 without exhausting statutory appeal remedies.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a reassessment order by Income Tax authorities under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act without pursuing the statutory appeal process. The Revenue contended that the petitioner should have first appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and then to the High Court under Section 260-A. On the other hand, the petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were illegal and warranted extraordinary jurisdiction.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the reassessment was based on entries in seized documents lacking evidentiary value. Reference was made to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the impermissibility of assessments based on inadmissible evidence. Another case involving a similar search and seizure operation was cited to support the argument that the petition should be entertained. However, the Revenue's counsel cited judgments to assert that the writ petition was not maintainable.

After hearing both parties, the Court noted that the petitioner had the right to appeal the assessment order but had directly approached the Court. The Court analyzed the relevance of Supreme Court judgments cited by both sides, emphasizing the importance of following statutory appeal procedures rather than resorting to writ petitions. It was observed that the assessment had been completed, and the statutory remedies were available to challenge the order.

The Court referred to specific Supreme Court and High Court judgments that underscored the principle of not entertaining writ petitions when statutory avenues for redressal were in place. It was emphasized that in this case, where the assessment process had concluded, it was not appropriate for the Court to intervene through a writ petition. The Court decided to dispose of the petition while granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal process.

In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioner should avail of the statutory appeal remedy rather than seeking relief through a writ petition. The petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to follow the proper appeal process to challenge the assessment order.