TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions regarding existence of any such ground to exercise the discretionary power vested on this court. The petitioners ought to have filed statutory appeal against the impugned assessments, instead of approaching this court by invoking Article 226. The writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) under section 246 (A), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal to be filed with CIT(A) - WP(C).NOs. 2570, 2573 & 2617 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2012 - MR. C.K.ABDUL REHIM J. PETITIONER: BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: BY ADV. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY ADV. SRI. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de through authorised representative the petitioners failed to furnish any details, inspite of adjournments sought for. On 8.10.2010 a notice proposing imposition of penalty, under section 271 (1) (b), was issued. Then the petitioners produced 'net wealth statement' on 15.11.2010. Eventhough the cases were posted for personal hearing on 30.11.2010 the petitioners failed to appear. Therefore pre assessment notices proposing finalisation of best judgment assessment was issued on 24.12.2010. Since the petitioners have not responded to the pre-assessment notice also, the assessments were finalised on 31.12.2010, as per Exts.P1 to P7 orders. 3. The impugned orders of assessment are assailed mainly on the ground that the assessments were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssments the petitioners were denied of opportunity for perusal of the seized records and in effectively contesting he assessments. It is contended that the impugned assessments are violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore inspite of availability of alternative statutory remedy, the petitioners are justified in invoking jurisdiction of this court, is the contention. 4. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents the sequence of events after conduct of search is narrated in detail. According to the respondents ample opportunity was afforded to the assessees, but they failed in co-operating with the assessments by not responding to various notices issued. It is specifically pointed out that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king in enumeration of any facts or figures or even the method proposed to be adopted for finalisation of the assessment. 6. Respondents have met with the above contention pointing out the specific provisions contained in section 144(1). The 2nd proviso to section 144(1) specifies that in cases where a notice under section 142(1) has issued prior to making of an assessment, it shall not be necessary to give any opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee as mandated under section 144 (1) (C). Therefore it is contended that, on the basis of failure on the part of the assessees in responding to notices issued under section 142(1) there was no requirement for calling for any objections or for affording any opportunity of personal heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court. 8. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble apex court in Income Tax Officer vs. M. Pirai Choodi 334(11) ITR 262 (SC). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Courts should not have set aside the entire assessment order on the basis of the contention that opportunity of cross examination was denied to the assessee. It is observed that, on the particular aspect the assessee could have gone in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals). On failure to comply the statutory remedy, the High Courts should not have quashed the assessment, is the observation. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given liberty to the assessee to move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that interest of justice will be served if the petitioners are given liberty to file appeals before the appellate authority. 11. Therefore the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioners to file appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) under section 246 (A), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If statutory appeals are filed within the time stipulated as above, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having jurisdiction in the matter should entertain those appeals as if they are filed within the statutory limitation period, and shall proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 12. The petitioners will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
