Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURTFaceless Assessment - Whether it cannot be gainsaid that one day time given qua SCN is too short as the writ petitioner has chosen to reply the very next day i.e., 22.09.2021 and it has also not chosen to ask for a personal hearing, though there is an option to ask for personal hearing vide sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 3 of SCN? - HELD THAT:- The first point urged i.e., a mere one day time qua SCN under the normal circumstances would have certainly been a formidable argument, but not in this case qua writ petitioner as writ petitioner has a) chosen to reply on the very next day i.e., 22.09.2021 and has also not chosen to ask for a personal hearing vide sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 3 of SCN. This draws the curtains on the first point. Availability of alternate remedy available to the writ petitioner vide a statutory appeal under Section 246A - A perusal of adumbration of the exceptions read in the context of narrative, discussion and dispositive reasoning supra brings to light that none of the exceptions set out by Hon'ble Supreme Court qua Commercial Steel case [2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT] law is attracted in the case on hand. The sequitur to the discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far is, this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy of statutory appeal inter alia under Section 246 A of IT Act subject of course to pre-deposit condition, if any and limitation. If the writ petitioner chooses to take the alternate remedy rule and file a statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider all the arguments/ grounds of appeal of the writ petitioner (including those raised in the instant writ petition) uninfluenced / untrammelled by observations made in this writ petition order. In other words, the appeal shall be considered and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order. The campaign of the writ petitioner against the impugned order comes to a conclusion, it fails and the sequitur is captioned main writ petition is dismissed albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal, if so advised and if so desired. Consequently, the aforementioned WMPs also are dismissed
|