9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted before us by the counsel for the petitioner. This petition is not entertained, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order before the Appellate Authority. If in the process, there has been some delay, we are sure that the Appellate Authority shall consider the same in view of the fact that the Petitioner was bona fide pursuing its remedies before this Court. All contentions of the Petitioner are kept open. - WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2019 - AKIL KURESHI B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Pragya Koolwal I/b UBR Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. N.C. Mohanty for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. P.C. : The Petitioner has challenged the notice of reopening of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are supplied by the Assessing Officer to the Petitioner on 14.9.2018. The Petitioner thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 3534 of 2018 challenging the notice of reopening the assessment. This was, at the request of the Petitioner was taken up for hearing by the Court on 13th December, 2018. This Court noticed that the Petitioner had approached the Court without raising objections before the Assessing Officer. This was clearly in breach of the mechanism devised by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC). The petition was disposed of in following terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition leaving all contentions open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there being any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly all material facts. In that view of the matter, the counsel contended, that the Assessing Officer would have no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Such being the facts the Petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer consumed considerably long time in providing the reasons for reopening the assessment. It is, therefore, that the Petitioner could not challenge the notice earlier. The Petitioner should not be penalized for delay on the part of the Assessing Officer in supplying the reasons. 7. The learned counsel relied on following decisions; (1) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aroni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra) i.e. without first raising the objections before the Assessing Officer. Allowing the assessee to do so without any explanation at all would dismantle such mechanism. It was because of this that the Court had previously refused to entertain his petition directly filed without raising objections before the Assessing Officer. The Petitioner thereupon withdrew the petition on 13th December, 2018 and filed the objections before the Assessing Officer. (2) The fact that in this case the petitioner raised objections promptly after withdrawing the petition from this Court, would not in any manner dilute the fact that it was on the ground of the petitioner's conduct that the Assessing Officer was left with little time to disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the challenge to the assessment made by the Assessing Officer and would necessarily entail examination of facts on record which the High Court would be loath to do as a writ court. Ordinarily, therefore, the Court would insist that in such a situation the assessee should take appellate route. Otherwise, the petitioner would argue the jurisdictional question in the High Court and if he fails, would opt to challenge the order on merits before the Appellate Authority, which would be most convenient. 9. Before closing we may record that in a case where the Petitioner is already before the Court and the order of the assessment was passed thereafter may stand on entirely different footing. Further in the present case by the self imposed restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
