2025 (3) TMI 880 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order being invalid and bad-in-law as it was passed beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 153 - HELD THAT - According to the learned advocate since limitation is a question of jurisdiction the petitioner is entitled to invoke the powers vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching the statutory authorities. As have considered such submissions on the issue relating to limitation and is of the view that the question of limitation involves mixed question of facts and law. As such summarily considering the same only on affidavits may not be appropriate in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case. See Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. 2003 (8) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT and TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED 2022 (7) TMI 1584 - SUPREME COURT DIN being absent in the assessment order which has rendered the order bad-in-law - To that effect a series of judgments have been placed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner however the issue is too technical and the judgment delivered in Tata Medical Center Trust 2023 (9) TMI 1324 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has been interfered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and there has been stay of the order wherein the proceedings were quashed by the High Court because of absence of DIN. Needless to state that in Tata Medical Center Trust 2023 (9) TMI 1324 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT the order was passed by the appellate authority and the Hon ble High Court exercised its power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vested in the High Court. As alternative and efficacious remedy is available whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Needless to say that very recently in Bank of Baroda v/s Farooq Ali Khan 2025 (2) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT it has been observed that the statutory Tribunals are constituted to adjudicate and determine certain questions of law and fact the High Court should not substitute themselves as the decision-making authority while exercising their powers of judicial review. Having considered that the petitioner has directly approached the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and called upon this Court to adjudicate issues relating to facts and the application of law on the said set of facts it is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order invalidates the order.
• Whether the assessment order was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
• Whether the assessment order was invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative remedy is available under the Income Tax Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Absence of DIN in the Assessment Order

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 mandates the generation and quoting of DIN in all notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner relied on the case of PCIT vs. Tata Medical Centre Trust, where the absence of DIN was held to invalidate the order.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the issue of DIN is technical and that the judgment in Tata Medical Centre Trust has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
• Conclusion: The absence of DIN was not deemed sufficient to invalidate the order in this case, considering the pending Supreme Court review.

Limitation of the Assessment Order

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153 of the Income Tax Act sets the time limits for passing assessment orders. The petitioner argued that the order was passed beyond the prescribed period.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the question of limitation involves mixed questions of fact and law, which are not suitable for summary adjudication in a writ petition.
• Conclusion: The Court did not conclusively determine the limitation issue, suggesting it should be resolved through statutory remedies.

Non-compliance with Section 144C

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 144C mandates a draft assessment order for eligible assessees, which was allegedly not followed.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, as it was not the primary focus of the judgment.
• Conclusion: The issue was not resolved in this judgment, as the Court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies.

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 226 provides the High Court with the power to issue writs but is generally not exercised when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, especially in tax matters.
• Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when effective alternative remedies are available, particularly in tax-related disputes.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act and the need for the petitioner to exhaust these remedies before approaching the High Court.

The judgment concludes with the dismissal of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek redress through the appropriate statutory channels. The Court also denied the petitioner's request for a stay on the order, as no interim relief had been granted earlier.