M/S GEEKAY MILLENIUM COMPANY V. UNION OF INDIA

WPT/124/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Geekay Millennium Company, represented by its partner Shri Suresh Atlani, challenging an assessment order and a demand notice issued under Section 147 read with Section 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed without considering their replies and without supplying the draft assessment order, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents countered that the draft assessment order had indeed been supplied to the petitioner and that the assessment order was appealable under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The court, finding that there were adequate alternative remedies available, declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686585 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT SINGH; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURV GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Efficacious Remedy; Natural Justice
• Section: 147; 254; 144(b); 246 A; 260-A

Judgement Text

"1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No.124 of 2022 M/s Geekay Millennium Company Through- Its Partner Shri Suresh Atlani, Aged About 62 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 8, Ashoka Millenium, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner 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 Center Delhi, Through- Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income Tax 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 For Petitioner : Shri Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent no.1: Shri Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5: Shri Ajay Kumrani, counsel appears on behalf of Shri Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 25/04/2022 1. This petition is directed against Assessment Order dated 30-03-2022 (Annexure P-1) and Demand Notice dated 30-03-2022 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 147 read with Section 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1961”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 24th & 27th March, 2022, the order impugned 2 has been passed even without supplying the draft assessment order dated 20-03-2022, therefore, the same is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order impugned, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Shri Kumrani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5, while referring to the order impugned (Annexure P-1), submits that the draft assessment order dated 20-03-2022 has already been supplied to the Petitioner, therefore, the contention as made herein in this aspect is not true. It is contended further that the impugned order of assessment dated 30-03-2022 (Annexure P/1) is appealable under Section 246-A of the Act, 1961 before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) and even against the order of Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner can avail remedy before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, 1961 and then he has further remedy of filing appeal before this Court under Section 260-A of Act, 1961, therefore, the instant writ petition, which is directly filed before this Court, is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition carefully. 5. At the outset, since the alternative efficacious remedy under Sections 246-A, 254 & 260A of the Act, 1961 is available to the petitioner, I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition at such a pre-matured stage. However, the petitioner is granted 3 weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the said authorities and, in turn, the said authorities shall consider and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) J U D G E Tumane "