Blackburn Fuels Private Limited V. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi

WP/28375/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Blackburn Fuels Private Limited, represented by its director, challenging an income tax assessment order for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment order, claiming it was passed arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessment order demanded a tax payment of Rs. 2,43,98,228. The petitioner had already appealed against this order, which was pending. The court decided not to entertain the writ petition simultaneously with the appeal and directed the appellate authority to expedite the decision on the appeal. Additionally, the court provided relief to the petitioner by staying the recovery of the balance tax subject to the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819374 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N HARINATH; M KIRANMAYEE
• Assessee Lawyers: J PRASAD
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Re-assessment; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.28375 of 2021 (Through physical mode) M/s. Blackburn Fuels Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Shri.Hari Prasad Reddy, Son of Shri Gopal Krishna Reddy, Aged about 55 years, 1/81 NCS Road, Srinivas Nagar, Vizianagaram. ..Petitioner Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No.401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. J. Venkateswara Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Mr. N. Harinath (ASG) Counsel for respondent No.2 : Ms. M.Kiranmayee (SC FOR INCOMETAX ) ORAL ORDER Dt:24.08.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following relief: “....to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of a writ calling for the records pertaining to the assessment order DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1035938778(1) dated 27.09.2021 on the file of the 1st Respondent relating to A.Y.2017-18 2 and quash the same as being passed arbitrarily and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and to pass such order or further orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Under the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to pay balance income tax to a tune of Rs.2,43,98,228/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that against the impugned assessment order, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal, which is pending before respondent No.3. 4. It is not the case, where the petitioner is questioning the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to re-assess the income for the assessment year 2017-18. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the notice is barred by limitation. Thus, it is a pure and simple petition challenging the assessment order on merits as also on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Once the assessing authority had the jurisdiction to re-assess the income chargeable for the assessment year 2017-18, the issue as to whether the jurisdiction had been property exercised or not on merits as also on the ground of non-affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner will be considered by the appellate authority. Even otherwise, since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal, it is not open for us to allow the petitioner to avail parallel remedies, one by way of writ petition and another by filing an appeal before respondent No.3. 6. In the above view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal on its own 3 merits at the earliest, preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. 7. Considering that the petitioner has already paid income tax to a tune of Rs.1,96,45,826/-, we direct that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of balance of Rs.2,43,98,228/- if the petitioner deposits Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J Nn/Ksp 4 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU W.P.No.28375 of 2021 Dt:24.08.2022 Nn/Ksp 5 "