Sri. AMARANATH POLISETTY V. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax,

WP/1282/2022

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Mr. Amaranath Polisetty, challenged the best judgment assessment orders issued by the Income Tax authorities for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The petitioner argued that these orders were illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice, among other claims. The primary contention was the alleged violation of natural justice as the materials relied upon by the assessment officer were not provided to the petitioner. Additionally, there was a concern about potential bias due to a familial relationship with the assessment officer. The respondents countered by highlighting the availability of an appellate forum where these issues could be addressed. The court, considering the availability of an appellate remedy and the lack of a request for information denial prior to the assessment order, decided not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 768803 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M KIRANMAYEE; N HARINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: T SRINIVASA MURTHY
• Keywords: Best Judgment Assessment; Jurisdiction; Violation of Principles of Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus; Appeal forum
• Section: 142A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No.1282 OF 2022 Mr. Amaranath Polisetty #17-4-336, 4/1, Vidya Nagar Ring road, Guntur 522007 Andhra Pradesh … Petitioner Versus 1 The Principal Commissioner of Income tax Vijaywada Revenue colony, Siddhartha Pubic School road Mogalrajapuram Vijayawada 533401 2 The Principal Commissioner of Income tax 111, 5th 30-15, 1, Main Rd Daba Gardens Visakhapatnam 530020 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle1 Income tax office Lakshmipuram main road Guntur522006 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle1 Incometax office Lakshmipuram main road Guntur-522006 5 The Joint Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle Income tax office Lakshmipuram main road Guntur 522006 6 The Additional Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle Incometax office Lakshmipuram main road Guntur522006 7 The Union of India represented by The Secretary to the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, North Block New Delhi-110001 … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate, representing Mr. M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate. 2 Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 6 : Ms. M. Kiranmayee, Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax. Counsel for the respondent no. 7 : Mr. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General. ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21.01.2022 (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and Ms. M. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the Income Tax. 2. The petitioner has moved the Court, for the following relief: “….to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the best judgment assessment orders dt.30.09.2021 for the A.Y.’s 2014-15 to 2020-21 passed by the Respondent No.3 in Exhibits: P-12 to P-18 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently to set aside the same and to further quash reference to valuation cell by 3rd respondent issued u/s 142A of the Act and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit……” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before the Court that the principles of natural justice have been violated as the materials on which the Officer has relied, while passing the assessment order, have not been supplied to him. Further, it was submitted that the Assessment Officer would be influenced by his brother, who is related to him and thus, the proceedings be transferred to the jurisdiction of another officer. 4. Learned counsel for the Income Tax submitted that there is a forum of appeal provided to the petitioner and all such matters can be agitated there. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find that there is any glaring circumstance for the Court to straightaway exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When there is a statutory appellate forum available, where all the issues and points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be considered, the petitioner is required to invoke such jurisdiction at the first instance. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that prior to the assessment order the petitioner had asked the authorities to provide him any information or material and the same was denied. Be that as it may, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for providing any material or information, which he may require and which may be available with the authorities. 4 6. Thus, taking an overall view in the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under the statute as may be available to him in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of. ________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J) ________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI,J) Pab 5 HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION No.1282 OF 2022 Date : 21.01.2022 6 Pab 7 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No.: WRIT PETITION No.1282 OF 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 1. 21.01.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J and B. S. BHANUMATHI, J (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Writ Petition is disposed of. (vide separate judgment) (B/o) Pab "