null V. Income Tax Department

WP/23935/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a petitioner challenging an assessment order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it was based on mere change of opinion and resulted in double taxation. The petitioner also argued that credit for part payments under the Income Declaration Scheme was not considered, and that the order was cryptic, failing to address all objections raised. The Income Tax department countered that the order was appealable before the CIT (Appeals), and thus not subject to writ jurisdiction. The court, after considering the submissions and materials, decided not to interfere with the assessment order, citing the existence of an alternative appellate remedy and the absence of any fundamental rights breach, natural justice violation, or jurisdictional error.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799694 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI (1998) 8 SCC 1, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2018) 1 SCC 603]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Appealable order; Cryptic order; Double taxation; Fundamental rights; Income Declaration Scheme; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Re-assessment; Statutory remedy; Writ jurisdiction
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.23935 OF 2021 (Taken up through video conferencing) ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that re-assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made on mere change of opinion and the income was subjected to double taxation. It is further submitted that his client had not been given credit of the part payments made by him under Income Declaration Scheme. The impugned assessment order is a cryptic one and has not dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee concerned. 2. In reply, the learned Senior counsel appearing for Income Tax department submits that the order is appealable before the CIT (Appeals). Hence, no case of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. 3. We have considered the materials on record. 4. Re-assessment was made under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act upon notice being issued upon the petitioner. Although the petitioner raised various objections to the re-assessment notice, no revised return was filed by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, was due to technical glitches. However, in course of re-assessment, no such issue was canvassed before assessing officer. Be that as it may, the 2 assessing officer considered the objections raised by the petitioner-assessee and passed impugned assessment order. There is an alternative appellate remedy available before the CIT (Appeals). 5. Ordinarily, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere with an order of assessment in the face of the existence of alternative statutory remedy except in the following cases:- a) Breach of fundamental rights; b) Breach of natural justice; c) Order being wholly without jurisdiction; d) Vires of statute is under challenge1. 6. Having considered the materials on record, in the light of the submissions of the parties, we are of the opinion, none of the aforesaid exceptions arise in the facts of the present case. Petitioner-assessee was given repeated notices and adequate opportunity to represent his case before the assessing officer. Whether the Assessing Officer effectively dealt with the objections or not, are questions falling within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Thus, the order does not suffer either from inherent lack of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 1 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION V. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI (1998) 8 SCC 1 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2018) 1 SCC 603] 3 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy in accordance with law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI _______________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN Date: 21.10.2021 MP 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No.23935 OF 2021 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi) 21-10-2021 MP 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.23935 of 2021 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 1. 21.10.2021 JB, J & BKM, J (Proceedings taken up through video conferencing) The Writ petition is dismissed. (vide separate order) _______________ Joymalya Bagchi,J _______________ B.Krishna Mohan,J MP "