2020 (10) TMI 944 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Penalty u/s 271AAC - unexplained income u/s 69 (A) - petitioner argues that the order passed is cryptic in nature as also the Officer has not assigned any reason for carrying out re-assessment in the case of the petitioner - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that all material facts necessary for adjudication were recorded and considered by the Officer and as such the order cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice even though it may be short in nature. Since disputed questions of fact are raised before us we refrain from adjudicating the same reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal which is an equally efficacious remedy. As such present petition stands disposed of. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that limitation may not come in the way of adjudication of the appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Income Tax Act 1961, demand raised against petitioner, penalty proceedings initiated, coercive action by Income Tax Officer, rejection of petitioner's explanation, consideration of demonetization period deposits, presumption under section 69A, treatment of cash deposits during demonetization, relief sought by petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought various reliefs through the writ petition, including quashing of assessment order treating a specific amount as unexplained income under section 69(A) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Additionally, the petitioner requested the quashing of orders related to raised demands and penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner also sought a writ to refrain from coercive actions and challenged the arbitrary exercise of authority by the Officer in rejecting explanations provided. Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized the consideration of cash deposits during the demonetization period and the applicability of presumptions under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court reviewed the petition and observed that the Officer had considered all necessary facts for adjudication, despite the brevity of the order. The Court refrained from adjudicating disputed factual questions, advising the petitioner to pursue statutory appeal as a remedy. The Court disposed of the present petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal within a specified timeframe without limitation hindrance, considering the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The Income Tax Department assured no coercive action would be taken if an appeal was filed within the stipulated period, which was accepted by the Court.

The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties and disposed of any interlocutory applications. The judgment emphasized the importance of statutory appeal as an efficacious remedy for the petitioner to address the disputed issues raised in the petition. The Court's decision highlighted the need for adherence to legal procedures and the availability of remedies within the framework of the Income Tax Act 1961.