M/S GEEKAY MILLENIUM COMPANY V. UNION OF INDIA

WA/243/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Geekay Millenium Company, represented by its partner Shri Suresh Atlani, who appealed against an order of the learned Single Judge, which declined to entertain their writ petition challenging an assessment order and demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the assessment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as their replies were not considered and the draft assessment order was not supplied to them. The respondents countered that the draft assessment order was indeed supplied. The High Court of Chhattisgarh, after hearing the arguments, upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, emphasizing the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724417 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PALASH TIWARI; AMIT CHAUDHARI; NAUSHINA ALI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Efficacious Remedy; Income Tax; Natural Justice
• Section: 147; 260A; 254; 144(b); 246 A

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 243 of 2022 M/s Geekay Millenium Company A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partner Shri Suresh Atlani, Aged About 62 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 8, Ashoka Millenium, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) No. 137, North Block, New Delhi -110001 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Through Additional/ Joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi, 110001 3. National E-Assessment Centre, Through Additional / joint / deputy / assistant Officer, Income Tax Department, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 4. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur -1, New C.R. Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), New C.R. Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Central Government Counsel. For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Senior Standing Counsel as well as Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu , Judge Judgment on Board Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice 07 .07.2022 Heard Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned central government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned senior standing counsel as well as Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5. 2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPT No. 124 of 2022 by which, having regard to the fact that alternative efficacious remedy under Sections 246- A, 254 & 260A of the Income Tax, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) is available to the petitioner as against the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 and Demand Notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 147 read with Section 144(B) of the Act of 1961, the learned Single Judge 3 declined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner was granted three weeks time to prefer an appeal. 3. Contentions were advanced before the learned Single Judge that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 24.03.2022 and 27.03.2022, the assessment order had been passed even without supplying the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2022 and therefore, the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. A perusal of the order would go to show that the contention was advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2022 had been supplied to the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the reply dated 24.03.2022, which was supposedly uploaded, does not indicate that any plea was taken that the draft assessment order was not received by the petitioner. However, we do not express any final opinion in this aspect of the matter. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Goyal that request for personal hearing, made through the reply dated 24.03.2022, was not considered and, that apart, the reply was also not considered, purportedly on the plea that “failed to load PDF documents”. Assuming that there was some problem, then also it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have informed the petitioner about the same so that remedial steps could have been taken by the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the issues involved in this case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference with the 4 order of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Three weeks’ time is granted to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. The petitioner may raise all grounds taken in these proceedings before this Court as also any other ground that may be available and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court. Sd/- Sd/- (Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Hem "