9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and book profit under section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,98,73,68,662/-. Original assessment was completed vide order dated 27.12.2010, Annexure P.2 passed under section 143(3) of the Act after examining complete records including books of account, return of income and accompanying documents filed by the petitioner. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs. 223,80,25,060/- as against Rs. 428,94,98,566/- claimed by the petitioner and deduction under section 80IB of the Act was varied to Rs. 65,764,60,593/- against Rs. 62,99,55,219/- claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid additions/disallowances before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 11.7.2011, Annexure P.3 the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, cross appeals by the petitioner and the department were filed which are pending before the Tribunal. In the meantime, an order setting aside the original assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on certain issues. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 147 of the Act vide notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2016 by respondent No.1. Final reassessment order was passed on 31.3.2016 under Section 143/147 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the sequence of facts as noticed above, we find that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the final reassessment order dated 31.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 under sections 143/147 of the Act. Further, questions of fact are also involved regarding the claim qua deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Act. 5. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained in a matter involving challenge to the order of the assessment passed by the competent authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and corresponding law enacted by the State legislature and answered the same in the negative by making the following observations: "Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." 7. Further, the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357, considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. After examining the relevant case law on the point, it was recorded as under:- "14. In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72). 17. In Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief and observed as follows: "12. In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 this Court adverted to the rule of self-imposed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed: (AIR p. 1423, para 7). "7. ... The High Court does not therefore act as a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.""(See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569) 18. In Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: "8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case, neither has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case." Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition against the reassessment orders as all the pleas that are sought to be raised herein can be raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 8. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), Allana Cold Storage Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bom.), Asian Paints Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom.), Aroni Commercials Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bombay), Garden Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Gujarat), Torrent Power SEC Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 561 (Guj.), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-09 vs. Tupperwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
