SHAHID MOHAMMAD V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

WPT/178/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shahid Mohammad, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing and with a predetermined mindset by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner argued that the jurisdiction to issue notice lay with the National Faceless Assessment Centre, not the local assessing officer, and that there was a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with crucial documents. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternate remedy through an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. The court decided to dispose of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769266 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPT No. 04 of 2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KHUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: MOOL JAIN
• Keywords: Alternate remedy; Assessment Order; Bogus Transaction; Natural Justice
• Section: 147; 144(b); 246 A

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 3 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 178 of 2023 Shahid Mohammad 852/26, Ravi Nagar, Raipur, S/o Shri Mohammad Akbar Khan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 852/26, Ravi Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2), Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi --------RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Khumrani, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 27/02/2024 1. The petitioner has assailed the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 under Section 147 r/w Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act on the count that no opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order with predetermined and prejudiced mind making irrelevant observation and made an addition of Rs. 2,60,45924/- to the total income. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while critisizing the impugned order of assessment would submit that as per the scheme notified on 29.03.2022 vide notification No. 18 the jurisdiction to issue notice lies with the National Faceless Assessment Centre and not with the Page 2 of 3 jurisdictional assessing officer. He would further submit that the copy of the statements of suppliers recorded at the back of the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the Assessing Authority has erred in law in treating the genuine purchases as bogus transaction despite submission of evidence by the assessee. Thus, he would submit that there is no bar in entertaining the writ petition even if alternate appellate remedy is available under Income Tax Act, 1961 and would submit that Writ Petition may kindly be admitted. 2. Counsel for the Revenue would submit that the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing the appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner (Appeals), as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that disputed facts are involved which can very well determined by the appellate authority as such also the writ petition is also not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee would submit that there is flagrant violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition can be entertained by this Court and there is no bar to entertain the writ petition even if the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is well settled legal position of the law the entertaining the writ petition, even if the alternate remedy is available is not a bar but self imposed restriction by the High Court itself in entertaining the writ petition when alternate remedy of appeal is available. Considering the well settled legal position of law and also considering the fact that the plea of non compliance of principle of natural justice can very well be taken before the Appellate Authority. This Court in case of WPT No. 04 Page 3 of 3 of 2024 has taken the same view wherein this Court also considered the provisions of GST Act, that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternate remedy and disputed facts involved and has observed as under:- 17. Considering the above factual and legal submission, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal available as provided under Section 107 of the GST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to take appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the GST Act. It is made clear that if the petitioner files duly constituted appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, neither the appellate authority nor the respondents shall take plea of limitation and the appellate authority will decide the appeal on its own merits without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court. 18. It is made clear that the trial Court has not gone into the merits of the case but consider rival submission of the parties to decide the issue of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. 6. In view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the petitioner files appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order neither the appellate authority nor the respondents shall take plea of limitation and the appellate authority will decide the appeal on its own merits without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition disposed off granting liberty in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh "