9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the order of reassessment. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged such an order of reassessment dated 29th December, 2018. 2. This challenge arises in the following background. The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2011-12 the Petitioner had filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 1.65 crores (rounded off). Subsequently the Petitioner had revised the return declaring the revised income of Rs. 2.64 Criores (rounded off). The return of the petitioner was taken in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer who passed the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) on 3.3.2015 accepting the Petitioner's revised income. 3. To reopen su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open. Petition disposed of accordingly." 4. The Petitioner thereupon raised the objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening of the assessment on 14.12.2018. Such objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 28.12.2018. Since the last date for framing the assessment was fast approaching and the assessment would get time barred on 31st December, 2018, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 28.12.2018. 5. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has once again approached the Court challenging very notice of reopening of the assessment and also including the challenge to the order of reassessment as consequential to the main challenge to reopening of the assessment. 6. At the outset we h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax reported in 275 CTR (Bom) 49 in which the Division Bench of this Court once again entertained the challenge of the Petitioner to the notice of reopening of the assessment, even though by the time the petition was filed, the order of the assessment was passed. 8. In facts in the present case we are not inclined to entertain this petition and we would relegate the petition to the statutory remedy. This is so for the following reasons. (i) We may recall the petitioner after being supplied the reasons for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer on 14.9.2018, approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition in November, 2018, without first raising the objections before the Assessing Officer. This was in clear breach of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order of objections. The petitioner by its conduct destroyed this formula provided by the Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra), making it impossible for the assessing officer to wait for four weeks after disposal of objections without running the risk of allowing the assessment to be time barred. (3) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in 357 ITR 357 (SC) has held that, ordinarily Writ Petition should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, it does not completely oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
