TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the matter, we are of the view that the High Court has justifiably held that it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when the same issue is already pending before the CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. As Mr. Ganesh urged that if an order of assessment is passed in the present case, the appellant would inevitably be relegated to pursue the remedies to seek a stay of recovery and hence it would be appropriate if the High Court is directed to decide the issue afresh we are not inclined to accede to that submission. We find that the High Court was justified in deciding not to enter upon a decision on an issue which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus we direct as Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the writ proceedings for challenging the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14, the Court observed that the objections to the reopening of the assessment are the same as those before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. Observing that any expression of opinion on the reopening of the assessment will affect the pending appeal before the Commissioner of Tax (Appeals), the High Court disposed of the writ petition, keeping open the challenge to be raised in appropriate legal proceedings. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue which is raised falls in a narrow frame. According to the appellant, Sections 19 and 21 of the Shri Saiba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court has justifiably held that it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 when the same issue is already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16. Mr. Ganesh urged that if an order of assessment is passed in the present case, the appellant would inevitably be relegated to pursue the remedies to seek a stay of recovery and hence it would be appropriate if the High Court is directed to decide the issue afresh. We are not inclined to accede to that submission. We find that the High Court was justified in deciding not to enter upon a decision on an issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 is valid is kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings after the assessment order is passed; iii). Upon the passing of the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2013-14 and in order to enable the assessee to pursue its remedies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) there shall be an interim protection in terms of the order dated 27 March 2018 that was passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 939 of 2018; iv). Both the appeals for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16 shall be heard together by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); v). The appellant shall be at liberty to pursue its remedies in accordance with law. The appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
