2020 (9) TMI 826 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained income u/s 69A - cash deposited during the demonetization period made out of cash in hand (which was more than four months) - penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, the Income Tax Officer/Respondent, taking into account the fact that the explanation given by the assessee that the cash deposited during the demonetization period made out of cash in hand (which was more than four months) of ₹ 11,10,000/- was against human probability and that there is no explanation for the source and nature of cash deposits in the Savings Bank Account, brought the above unexplained income to tax under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, disposed of the writ petition, by granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to file appeal before the concerned appellate authority. It shows that the assessee/appellant herein, without availing the appellate remedy, filed the Writ Petition before the writ court. Single Judge, directed the writ petitioner/appellant herein to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority, challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Considering the fact that the Act provides effective and sufficient forum for any aggrieved party to work out their remedy, we do not find any ground or any merit in the appeal. Further, the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, relied on by the appellant, would not in any manner advance the case of the appellant/assessee. Therefore, The Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment order challenged by the appellant.
2. Availability of statutory appellate remedy.
3. Principles of natural justice and jurisdiction in assessment proceedings.
4. Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Applicability of previous court decisions on similar matters.

Issue 1: Assessment order challenged by the appellant
The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the assessment order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the respondent Income Tax Officer, based on cash deposits made during the demonetization period.

Issue 2: Availability of statutory appellate remedy
The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to file a regular appeal before the Appellate Authority within three weeks, considering the availability of a statutory appellate remedy. The appellant then filed an intra court appeal against this decision.

Issue 3: Principles of natural justice and jurisdiction in assessment proceedings
The appellant contended that the assessment done under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act as an ex-parte best judgment assessment was incorrect, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 4: Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act
The appellant argued that no notice was issued under Section 143(2) before proceeding with the ex-parte best judgment assessment under Section 144, emphasizing the importance of such notice for scrutiny of the return of income.

Issue 5: Applicability of previous court decisions on similar matters
The appellant cited previous court decisions to support their contention that the matter could be remitted to the Appellate Authority based on the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court, after careful consideration, noted that the Income Tax Officer brought the unexplained income to tax under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, considering the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as against human probability. The Court highlighted that the Act provides an effective forum for aggrieved parties to seek remedy through the appellate process.

The Court observed that the appellant had the option to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority but chose to file a Writ Petition instead. Relying on previous Supreme Court decisions, the Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to direct the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

In conclusion, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, agreeing with the view of the learned Single Judge. The Court emphasized the adequacy of the statutory appellate process and rejected the appeal, with no costs awarded.