M/S HEMANT ENTERPRISES V. UNION OF INDIA and ORS.

WPMS/1550/2010

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Hemand Enterprises, a sole proprietorship running a hotel in Haridwar, which sought a writ of certiorari to set aside a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and a mandamus to direct the ITO to extend the benefits of Section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that their business qualifies under the eco-tourism policy promoted by the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which should entitle them to tax exemptions. However, the court found that determining the eligibility of the petitioner's business for eco-tourism benefits required factual scrutiny, a matter not suitable for decision in writ jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722483 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: FARIDA SIDDIQUI; ARVIND VASHISTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEK SHUKLA
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Eco-tourism; Income tax exemption; Mandamus; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 80-IC

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1550 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Hemand Enterprises ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Farida Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. Dated:-29-09-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside notice dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure-3 to the petition), passed by respondent No. 3. It is further prayed that mandamus be issued directing the respondent No. 3 to extend the benefit of Section 80 IC of Income Tax Act to the petitioner firm. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition are that petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm, which runs a hotel, situated near Shiv Murti Haridwar, District Haridwar. It is further stated in the writ petition that the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Commerce and Industry came out with a policy to encourage the ECO tourism in North, Eastern State in which Uttarakhand is also included. According to the aforesaid policy, certain exemption and promotions were provided to the enterprises, which are involved in the field of tourism. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is entitled to the benefit under Section 80 IC of Income Tax Act, as it is within the purview of eco tourism. It appears that impugned notice dated 21.12.2009, which is annexed as annexure –3 to the writ petition was issued by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings for an enquiry. A reply dated 11.01.2010, has already been given by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer- Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Haridwar. Aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 21.12.2009, this writ petition has been filed. 2 Contention of the petitioner is that benefit under Section 80 IC of Income Tax Act was given to the petitioner in the previous assessment year. An explanation was sought from the petitioner vide letter dated 21.12.2009 by the Income Tax Officer. The reply of the same has already been given on 11.01.2010 (annexure-4 to the writ petition). In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The claim of the petitioner is that as the petitioner firm comes within the purview of eco tourism, therefore, is entitled for exemption under Section 80 IC of Income Tax Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that factual scrutiny in the matter is required. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot decide the disputed question of fact that whether the petitioner firm comes under the purview of eco tourism and the same is to be decided by the Assessing Officer. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, may be raised before the Assessing Officer. The writ petition is dismissed with the direction that Assessing Officer shall conclude the proceedings of assessment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, if not already concluded from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. (B.S.Verma, J.) 29-09-2010 S "