9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lternative remedy available under the Act. All contentions left open to be urged before the Authorities. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 787 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2016 - M.S. SANKLECHA AND A.K. MENON, JJ. For The Petitoner : Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel a/w Aashish Gabhale For The Respondent : Mr. Arvind Pinto P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 200809. 2. The impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act intimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a week. Thereafter, on 14th January, 2016, the petitioners submitted the details called for by the Assessing Officer but pointed out that the information is being submitted subject to the objections to the impugned notice which would be filed by it. On 22nd January, 2016 the petitioners filed its objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. On 25th January, 2016, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. This petition was filed on 2nd March, 2016 and at the instance of the petitioners adinterim relief was granted staying the impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015. 5. At the very outset, Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel for the Revenue raised a prelim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections to the reasons which were to be filed in due course. Thus, there was no participation in proceedings before the Assessing Officer; and (c) A compilation of judgments were filed in support of the petition. However out of the compilation, attention was invited toand reliance was placed only upon following three decisions : (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. ITSC Ors. 365 ITR 87. (ii) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Ors. 8 SCC 1. (iii) P.R. Easwaran Vs. Sixth Income Tax Officer, Circle II, Coimbatore 72 ITR 263. 8. Our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary. Therefore, we would exercise the same whenever we are of the view that interest of justice would require its e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and secure the same ultimate relief. 9. In this case, we find that the petitioners have filed detailed information called for by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and thus participated in the assessment proceedings. This having been done, it is not open for the petitioners to now contend that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and prohibit the Authorities from proceeding further with the impugned notice. This is particularly so as the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioners before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings under the Act. In the present facts, the petitioners have participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seems to be to delay the proceedings so as to leave very little time for the Assessing Officer to complete the reassessment proceedings. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioners coupled with its submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, disentitles the petitioners to the extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The three decisions on which Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners place reliance, in our view, do not apply to the facts and circumstances arising in this particular case. The exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction is dependent upon the facts arising before us. The case laws can only be guidelines in exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The case laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings. (c) The reliance upon the ITSC (supra) is misplaced as the challenge there was to an order of the Settlement Commission from which no alternative remedy of an appeal is available. The Settlement Commission in the facts of that case exercised jurisdiction even though according to the Revenue in its challenge before the Court, the applicant had failed to make true and full disclosure of all the material facts in its application for settlement. Thus, it was contended that it had not jurisdiction. The assessee before the Court pleaded that as the Revenue had participated in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, it is not open to the Revenue to now challenge the orders of the Commission. This was negatived by the Court on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
