Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1231 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTMaintainability of appeal in writ Court - seeking action as an AO or an appellate authority - Validity of re-assessment order passed u/s 147 - correctness of the order passed u/s 148A (d) - scope of alternate remedy - as argued error has crept in commencing from the stage of issuance of notice un/s 148A (b) and even thereafter, while passing the re-assessment order there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the elaborate reply given by the assessee to the notice issued u/s 142(1) as well as the show-cause notice had not been considered and brushed aside in a single line HELD THAT:- The appellant did not question the initiation of the reopening of the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148A (b) nor the appellant challenged the order passed u/s 148(d). Therefore, at this distance of time, the appellant is precluded from questioning the correctness of the order passed u/s 148A (d) of the Act. After the said order, the re-assessment proceedings have commenced and notice under Section 148 has been issued. The assessee has participated in the proceedings, submitted their reply and the assessing officer has considered the reply and passed an order setting out certain reasons. To test the correctness of those reasons, facts have to be gone into much of which are being disputed by the appellant assessee. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was fully justified in holding that the re-assessment order being an appealable order, the same can be challenged before the appellate authority. That apart, whether the replies given by the assessee has been properly appreciated or not appreciated is also a ground which can be canvassed before the appellate authority. That apart, whether the appellant is entitled to seek cross-examination of certain third parties is also a ground which can be urged by the appellant before the appellate authority. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was justified in relegating the appellant to avail the alternate remedy. Thus no ground to interfere with the order impugned. In result, the appeal is dismissed.
|