Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 155 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTAssessment u/s 153A - petitioner contends that the impugned demand notices are liable to be struck down though the petitioners had filed the Returns much before the prescribed date, the respondent-Income Tax Officer conveniently has ignored the same and wrongly stated that no Returns were filed - alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal - HELD THAT:- The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya V. N.Subbiah Choudhry and Other [1957 (2) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] , has held that the right of appeal is a creature of law and where the law prescribes certain conditions, the right is conditioned/curtailed and that the litigant can avail his right of appeal subject to complying with such conditions if any. That being so, the explanation offered by the petitioners for not availing the statutory appeal remedy, does not constitute a valid ground. The contention of the petitioner that he had sought for reasons for issuing the impugned notices from the Revenue and that the said solicitation having not been complied with, the action of the Revenue is vulnerable, is sustainable. However, much is not deliberated on this issue in as much as the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submits that the petitioner would be furnished the reasons in view of the fact that he has now filed the Returns. There is one aspect of equity which the Writ Court needs to take into account; the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court much before the Re-assessment Orders were passed by the first respondent-Income Tax Officer; there appear to be some procedural defects in making these orders, as pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee; however, deeper consideration at the hands of the Appellate Authority, if and when an appeal is filed, may be warranted in this regard. In view of this, the petitioner need to be given some limited protection in order to make his right of appeal meaningful as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of UTI Mutual Funds Vs. Income Tax Officer [2012 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] These writ petitions succeed in part; the respondent-Income Tax Officer shall furnish reasons to the petitioners for issuing of the subject notices forthwith; the petitioner is reserved liberty to lay challenge to the Re-assessment Orders in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or such other competent authority within a period of four weeks; if appeals are accordingly filed, the issue of limitation and delay shall not be raised by the Appellate Authority; the petitioner shall not be coerced with the Re-assessment Orders or the impugned notices to make payment for a period of four weeks so that the filing of the appeal is meaningfully facilitated.
|