Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1333 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTAssessment u/s 144 - Denial of principles of natural justice - petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of revision - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, in the facts of the present case, there is no violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner or there is a violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner admits, it was issued notices during the assessment proceedings and it had responded to the same. Whether an order under Section 144 of the Act could have been passed in the facts and circumstances claimed by the respective parties, may involve factual issues. Even otherwise, that objection may lead to an inference of irregular exercise of power but not inherent lack of jurisdiction. Such objections may be adequately addressed by the statutory authorities as well. On their face, such objections do not always commend to the Court to offer interference when ever such objections are raised. In the present case, the petitioner having already filed a revision prior to filing of the writ petition, we are not inclined to lift to bar of alternate remedy. For that reason, the other decision of the Supreme Court relied by the learned Senior Advocate in the case of Harbans Lal Sahania [2002 (12) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT] is also of no help to the petitioner. As to the last decision relied by learned Senior Advocate is of the Gurgaon Realtek Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [2021 (6) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we find, in that case, a remedy of appeal had been availed by the assessee. However, the Delhi High Court lifted the bar of alternate remedy taking note of the ground of lack of jurisdiction on account of limitation. In that case, the Delhi High Court reached a conclusion that the assessment order could not have been passed under Section 143 (3A) and 143 (3B) on 15.04.2021 as that date fell after the date 31.03.2021. Here we are unable to reach that conclusion. The facts are otherwise. There is no bar of limitation being pressed into service. The other contention of petitioner that the preliminary objection has been raised for the first time today by means of the counter affidavit and that had not been pressed earlier cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the order sheet does not offer any assistance in that regard. The matter does not appear to have been heard on merits nor such hearing could be inferred from the perusal of the order sheet. At the same time, the order sheet only indicates that on the first date itself, the revenue sought and was granted time to file counter affidavit. Only contention advanced appears to have be as to the time sought and granted by the Court. However, it does not appear that the preliminary objection was either raised or waived at that stage. Matter has remained on the fresh list and the Court cannot act unmindful on the statutory provisions and the conduct of the parties. Here, the assessment order is dated 24.12.2019. The revision itself was filed on 17.12.2020 and the writ petition has been filed six months thereafter in June, 2021. The alternate remedy had already been availed before the writ petition came to be filed. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that such preliminary objection had not been raised on the first hearing, the court cannot ignore on the admitted fact that before approaching the Court, the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of revision. To entertain such a writ petition would also affect the judicial policy of the Court which it consistently follows of not entertaining such writ petitions, where alternative remedy has already been availed. Being discretionary in nature, the Court remains as consistent as is humanly possible. No exceptional circumstance is made out as may commend to the Court to lift the bar of alternate remedy. Merely, because the petitioner society is a body of lawyers regularly practising before this Court cannot make out a case of exception. As to the last submission of learned Senior Counsel that by virtue of proceedings under Section 270 A of the Act having been dropped, the petitioner's revision became infructuous, we may only observe that the submission is ill-conceived. The remedy of Revision is a statutory remedy. Once availed, it may never be adversely affected by the conduct of the respondent authority, unless it has a beneficial impact on the assessee.
|