PRITHVI RAJ SINGH V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORS

SAW/415/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Prithvi Raj Singh, the appellant, who challenged the orders passed by the Sub Registrar, Beawar, and the Assessing Officer, as well as a demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh. The appellant contended that the stamp authority had valued the property without his knowledge, adversely affecting him under the Income Tax Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy before the CIT(Appeals) and the inapplicability of writ jurisdiction in this case. The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the principle of not entertaining petitions under writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 684772 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Rajasthan Stamp Act, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: A K BHANDARI; SAMIT BISHNOI
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Assessment; Income Tax; Stamp Duty; Writ jurisdiction
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.415/2016 Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur & ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: 07th November, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Samit Bishnoi, for the appellant. BY THE COURT:- (Per Hon'ble Jhaveri, J.) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant. 2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 19/9/2011 passed by the Sub Registrar, Beawar, District Ajmer, and the order dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has also challenged the demand notice dated 31st August, 2015 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Kishangarh. The contention of the appellant is that the stamp authority has valued the property behind back of the appellant and the appellant is adversely affected by the order of the stamp authority and assessed higher under the Income Tax Act. Counsel for the 2 appellant further contended that the appellant is remedyless and he has no other option but to file the writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge while considering the case of the appellant had observed as under:- “4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record as also the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act as well as of the Income Tax Act, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31/3/2015 passed by the Assessing Officer, before the CIT(Appeals). Hence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal relied upon by Ms. Parinitoo Jain, the present petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable in the eye of law. It is held therein as under :- “Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction underArticle 226. (See: State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499).” 5. In view of the above stated legal position, the petitioner having already approached the Appellate Authority and availed of the alternative remedy, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The submission made by the learned counsel Ms. Parinitoo Jain for the 3 respondents that the petitioner having not made any application before the Appellate Authority seeking stay against the execution of and the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the demand notice dated 31/8/2015 was issued by the concerned Income Tax Officer has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the learned counsels for the respondents that in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner has already objected against the determination of sale consideration to be Rs.8,91,48,410/- instead of Rs.6,06,91,845/-. That being the subject matter pending before the Appellate Authority, the Court restrains itself from expressing any opinion on such valuation. It is needless to say that the Appellate Authority shall decide the said appeal in accordance with law. 6. So far as the impugned order dated 19/9/2011 is concerned, apart from the fact that the same is sought to be challenged after four years by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the said order was passed when the seller Shri Prithvi Raj Singh, who was the husband of the petitioner and also one of the partners of the purchaser firm was alive. Thereafter the said purchaser firm had complied with the said order passed by the Sub Registrar, crystalling the liability of the purchaser firm. It is therefore not open for the petitioner to challenge the said order by way of present petition, more so when the petitioner has challenged the assessment made by the Assessing officer on the basis of the said order of the Stamp Authority, before the CIT(Appeals). Though it is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Abhey Bhandari for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the deposit of deficit stamp duty made by the purchaser firm, it is difficult to accept the said submission. When the said late Shri Prithvi Raj Singh was alive at the relevant time, and subsequently when the deed of retirement was also executed on 12/12/2011 by the legal heirs of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh, it is too late in the light of the day for the petitioner to challenge the said order passed by the Sub Registrar as back as in the year 2011.” 4. In our view, under the Stamp Duty Act, the assessing officer is required to make the deficiency in payment good 4 which has adverse affect in whatsoever manner, therefore, order under the Stamp Duty Act could not have been disturbed by the learned Single Judge and the same has rightly been done by the learned Single Judge. Order of the year 2011 was challenged after 4 years which cannot be disturbed. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the the Income Tax Authority is a consequential order against which the appellant has remedy before the CIT(A). 6. The appeal as well as stay application stand dismissed. (Goverdhan Bardhar), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. Brijesh12. "