CHHATTISGARH RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/250/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal challenging an order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessment included items not mentioned in the show cause notice. However, the court held that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to respond and should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal instead of filing a writ petition directly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724241 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHOUDHARY; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAO; MANOJ SINHA
• Keywords: Assessment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Show cause notice; Writ petition
• Section: 143(3); 246A; 144B

Judgement Text

"-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (T) No.250 of 2022 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) Pin - 492001. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner of Income - Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) - 492001. 3. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption) Income Tax Office, Metro Walk Building, E-5, Area Colony, bittan Market, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh - 462- 016. 4. Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income - Tax Department, Through Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Block, New Delhi. 5. Deputy/assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle, Income Tax Office, Metro Walk Building, E-5, Arera Colony, Bittan Market, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh - 462-016. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao and Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For Respondents : Shri Amit Choudhary and Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 25.11.2022 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P/1 dated 17.09.2022. The impugned order is one which has been passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition would show that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to show cause notices that were issued to the petitioner first on 29.08.2022 calling upon the petitioner to submit their response by 06.09.2022. When the petitioner failed to give their response there was yet another show cause notice issued on 09.09.2022 calling upon the petitioner to again submit whatever response if at all if they want by 12.09.2022. In response to the second show cause notice the petitioner has submitted his response on -2- 12.09.2022 itself. The show cause notices also revealed that the petitioner could well avail the option of Video Conferencing so far as personal hearing is concerned and it is only thereafter that the impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed. 3. The said impugned order is one which is appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Since there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, filing of a writ petition evading the statutory remedy would not be proper and justified. The counsel for the petitioner tried to canvass that the matter is one where there is a violation of principles of natural justice. That, the assessment made by the assessing authority also is in respect of certain assessments which were not reflected in the show cause notice. Therefore this becomes an exceptional case for the writ court to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 4. Both these grounds, in the opinion of this court, would not bring it within the ambit of an exceptional circumstances for exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner had been repeatedly called upon to address the issue before the authorities concerned and if the petitioner is aggrieved of the assessment, if any, the petitioner is supposed to avail the remedy of appeal first and only thereafter exhausting all the remedies the remedy under the writ jurisdiction can be availed. 5. Therefore, under the said circumstances, reserving the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, the writ petition at this juncture stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder "