Kodavoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha V. Assessing Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre and Income Tax Officer Ward-1 & TPS

WP/20091/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Kodavoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, represented by its CEO Mr. Sudhakar, challenging an assessment order dated 20.09.2021 issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer exceeded the terms of remand set by the Tribunal in a previous case and failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments. The court dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the petitioner should utilize the appeal process under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act instead of seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798858 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut & Anr. - (2021) SCC Online SC 16, The Citizen Co-operative Society Limited, through its Managing Director, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - (2017) 9 SCC 364
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH UPPIN
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Writ petition; Substantive Remedy
• Section: 246 A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.20091/2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: KODAVOOR VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA 16-62, KODAVOOR, POST KODAVOOR, UDUPI - 576 106 REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O., MR. SUDHAKAR AGE:46 YEARS. … PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI - 110 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS AAYAKAR BHAVAN ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD UDUPI - 576 103. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing of the assessment order dated 20.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure-G and to quash the demand notice at Annexure-H. 2. Petitioner submits that on previous occasion, the petitioner was before the Appellate Authority in I.T.A.No.10346/MNG/CIT(A)MNG/18-19 challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2016-17. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Petitioner further submits that an appeal was filed in I.T.A.No. 707/Bang/2019 for the assessment year 2016-17 and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with certain directions. 3 It is submitted that subsequent to the remand, the Assessing Officer has passed a fresh assessment order as per the order at Annexure-G dated 20.09.2021. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Assessing Officer has traversed beyond the terms of remand as made out by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.707/Bang/2019. Various contentions have been raised including that the assessing officer has not taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut & Anr. - (2021) SCC Online SC 16. 4. It is contended that the Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service (supra) has clarified the legal position while referring to the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Citizen Co-operative Society Limited, through its MAnaging Director, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax - (2017) 9 SCC 364. It is also contended that the Court in the case of Mavilayi Service has made certain observations at 4 Paragraph Nos. 46 to 49 which have not been taken note of by the Assessing Officer. 5. It must be noted that when the substantive right of appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act is available, the petitioner would be well advised to invoke the substantive remedy. Though the petitioner contends that the directions of the Tribunal have not been followed while passing a fresh order, said contention is also open to be advanced before the Appellate Authority. No ground is made out for invocation of the writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to explore the substantive remedy of appeal under Section 246-A of the Act. If appeal is filed within thirty days from today same shall be taken on its merits and disposed off without raising any objections as regards to the limitation in light of the pendency of proceedings before this Court. Needless to state that the contentions raised by the petitioner including those relating to interpretation of the judgment of the Apex Court which 5 have bearing on the assessment proceedings ought to be taken note of as per law. Sd/- JUDGE VP "