9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 30th April, 2021, of assessment post scrutiny, of the return of income filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-19. 4. The petitioner, claiming to be a charitable society registered under Section 12A and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19, showing the taxable income as NIL and claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and on 23rd September, 2019, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the petitioner, from time to time, supplied documents sought by the respondent no. 1 Natio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that once the respondents have introduced the scheme of faceless assessment through the respondent no. 1 National Faceless Assessment Centre at Delhi, how can the respondents object to the jurisdiction of this Court being invoked, irrespective of the locate/situate of the assessee. Attention of the counsel for the respondents is drawn to Kusum Inglots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 where it was held that petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order or a finding of a Court or Tribunal or executive authority situated at Delhi, is maintainable at Delhi, though this Court, in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens, m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court. In the recent judgment in Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India (2020) 13 SCC 285 also, the argument that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the High Court of Bombay stood ousted because of the parties having agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Chennai, was rejected and it was held that once the High Court of Bombay had jurisdiction, merely because another High Court also had jurisdiction and the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of that High Court, was only a factor to be considered in the exercise of discretion, whether to entertain the writ petition in that High Court or not. 9. However it is deemed appropriate that rather than this Bench, which does not have taxation matters on its roster, hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
