Manan Jaiswal V. Commissioner of Income Tax and Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

WPC/3089/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Manan Jaiswal, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition challenging the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued for the assessment year 2004-05, and the subsequent reassessment order. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, claiming that the jurisdiction assumed by the Income Tax authorities was void ab-initio. The respondents were various officials from the Income Tax department. The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, held that the petitioner should have availed the alternative statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the court. The court found no cogent reasons to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681442 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vrs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN PODDAR; MAHENDRA CHOWDHARY; RAKHI SHARMA; DARSHANA MISHRA
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Jurisdiction; Quashing notice; Reassessment order; Writ petition
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 3089 of 2015 ------ Manan Jaiswal, son of Shri Jayant Kumar Jaiswal, resident of “Jaiswal Building”, Dimna Road, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur-831012 .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, 47, Circuit House Area, Circuit House, Jamshedpur, Jamshepur-831001 2. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bagmati Road, Jamshedpur-831001 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bagmati Road, Jamshedpur-831001 .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Mahendra Kr. Chowdhary, Advocate : Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate : Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate ------ ORAL ORDER Per Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J. 15/Dated: 12.02.2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed inter-alia for grant of following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the Notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure-3), issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.2), for the assessment year 2004-05, to assess/re-assess the income of the petitioner. (b) For a declaration that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 2 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Respondent No.2 for the assessment year 2004-05 is ab-initio void in view of settled law in this regard. (c) For quashing and setting aside the ex-parte reassessment order dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure-16) passed u/s 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (d) For any other appropriate writ (s), order(s), direction (s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vrs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held at paragraph nos. 16 and 17 as under:- “16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assesse could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar’s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 17. In the instant case, neither has the writ petitioner assesse described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of the instant case. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the writ court ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed by the assesse, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the reassessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon.” 4. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vrs. Chhabil Dass 3 Agarwal (supra), as above, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy available under the Income Tax Act and has not been able to put-forth any cogent and satisfactory reason to persuade us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the light of the same, we are of the view that since the writ petitioner has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the reassessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon, the writ petitioner was first required to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. 6. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed, however liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. 7. If the memorandum of appeal is preferred within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with the limitation petition, then let the same be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law also considering the delay that has been caused due to pendency of the writ petition. 8. This goes without saying that the writ petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the issues before the appellate Forum which would be available to him in law. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad,J.) Alankar/Rohit/- "