WATER WORLD TOURISM COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/22618/2021

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Toby Chandy, challenging an assessment order issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the assessing authority failed to consider a binding judgment from the Bombay High Court, which they claimed was a sufficient ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court, however, found that the issues raised were more suited for appellate consideration rather than extraordinary judicial intervention.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 751708 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others v. Commercial Steel Limited [(2021) SCC online SC 884]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON; R SREEJITH; K KRISHNA
• Keywords: Article 226; Assessment Order; Binding judgment; Excess of jurisdiction; Income Tax; Natural Justice
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S.WATER WORLD TOURISM COMPANY PVT. LTD. MUNICIPAL BOAT JETTY, ALAPPUZHA-688 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, TOBY CHANDY. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.22618 of 2021 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Petitioner challenges the assessment order dated 17.09.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent assessing authority. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the assessing authority failed to consider the binding judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589. According to the petitioner, failure to consider a binding judgment is a sufficient cause for invoking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the reasoning of the assessing WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 3 authority for ignoring the said judgment was itself perverse. 3. I have heard the arguments of Adv.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. The remedy of a person aggrieved by an order of assessment is to prefer an appeal in accordance with the statutory scheme. The scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 is very limited. The jurisdiction under Article 226 can invoked only in exceptional circumstances; like violation of the principles of natural justice, acting in excess of jurisdiction, or when there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of provisions and breach of fundamental rights (see judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others v. Commercial Steel Limited [(2021) SCC online SC 884]. None of WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 4 the circumstances mentioned above exists in the instant case. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to consider the binding decision rendered by the Bombay High Court is itself is a ground that can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 6. Challenge against the order of assessment requires an appreciation of facts, that too, when there are disputed facts, as in the present case. 7. In such circumstances, there is no reason to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his statutory remedies in accordance with law. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/23/10//2021 WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22618/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2020. Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2020. Exhibit P3 COPY OF NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/17/2020- 21/1030408496 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.2.2021. Exhibit P4 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2021. Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/17/2020- 21/1030663758 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.2.2021. Exhibit P6 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.2.2021. Exhibit P7 COPY OF NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2020- 21/1031591576 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.3.2021. Exhibit P8 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2021. Exhibit P9 COPY OF NOTICE ITBA/AST/F/17/2020-21/1031687466 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2021. Exhibit P10 COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2021. Exhibit P11 COPY OF NOTICE NO.ITBA/AST/F/143(3)/(SCN)/2021- 22/1032139402 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2021. Exhibit P12 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6.4.2021. Exhibit P12(A) COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY UNITED INDIAN SCHOOL ABBASIYA-KUWAIT DATED 6.4.2021. Exhibit P12(B) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 26.3.2015. Exhibit P12(C) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 30.12.2017. Exhibit P12(D) COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH IN ITA NO.187/PAN/2019 DATED 12.3.2021. Exhibit P12(E) COPY OF ORDER IN ITA NO.1482/HYD/2014 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD DATED 18.3.2015. Exhibit P13 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.9.2021. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY "