Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 464 - MADRAS HIGH COURTValidity of order of assessment as made in violation of the principles of natural justice - excess value of stock liable to be treated as unexplained investment, while adding the same to the total income invoking Section 69B - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the submission of appellant that the proceedings leading up to the passing of the impugned order lacks clarity and has resulted in the appellant being led to believe that their response/ explanation in respect of the proposal to treat a sum as excess stock, except to the extent as accepted inasmuch as the Respondent had vide notice dated 16.08.2022 called for explanation only in respect of a sum of Rs. 29,36,013/-. This in turn has resulted in the appellant not putting forth any further explanation in respect of the alleged excess stock over and above Rs. 29,36,013/-, thereby resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. Rejection of the writ petition on the ground of availing of alternative remedy, it is trite law that Courts would be loathe to entertain a writ petition if alternate remedy is available. However, the rule of alternate remedy is a self-imposed restriction, to which the Courts have carved out exceptions some of them being violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as we have already find that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and the same warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are inclined to remand the matter back to the assessing authority, who shall grant one more opportunity to the appellant to put forth its explanation / objection in respect of excess stock, which has been treated as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act. Accordingly, the orders impugned in this appeal as well as in the writ petition, are set aside and the Respondent is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and to pass orders afresh, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
|