2018 (6) TMI 1285 - HC - Income Tax

Challenge the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w 254 after receipt of recovery notice u/s 156 - Held that - Petitioner having not questioned the order passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section 254 of the Act and the consequential demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Act, both dated 30.03.2014, cannot at this stage of the matter impugned a communication sent by the respondent granting a final opportunity to the petitioners to pay the demand. Therefore, it is contended that unless and until the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order dated 30.03.2014, the question of entertaining a Writ petition against the impugned communication does not arise. As pointed out earlier, the stand taken by the Revenue is perfectly justified and is in order. Therefore, this Court cannot entertain the Writ petition challenging the impugned communication, which is a consequence upon the assessment order passed dated 30.03.2014. However, the petitioner is not remedy less as appeals are maintainable against the orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w 254 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice demanding arrears for TDS default under Section 194 LA of the Income Tax Act.
Validity of impugned communication and final opportunity granted to pay the arrears.
Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition against the impugned communication.
Availability of remedy through appeals against orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section 254 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a notice demanding arrears for TDS default under Section 194 LA of the Income Tax Act, contending that the demand was unjustified as the provision came into force in 2004, but the communication regarding it was received in 2008, almost four years later. They argued that agricultural lands were exempt from TDS deduction for compensation, but the lands acquired were classified as non-agricultural, hence subject to TDS. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to the demand notice issued in 2014.

The High Court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the orders under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section 254 of the Act, dated 30.03.2014, and thus could not challenge the subsequent communication demanding payment without first appealing against the orders. The Court emphasized that the impugned communication was a consequence of the assessment order and could not be challenged separately. However, the petitioners were advised to pursue their remedy through appeals against the orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) r/w Section 254 of the Act.

Although the Court acknowledged that under normal circumstances, the writ petition would have been dismissed, it allowed the petitioners to move the Appellate Authority to challenge the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed the respondent not to initiate coercive action for 15 days to allow the petitioners to pursue their remedy. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed, with the connected miscellaneous petition closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the proper legal procedures and exhausting available remedies before seeking relief through the High Court.