9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril, 2022 (Annexure P-3) passed under Clause (d) of Section 148-A of the Act. 2. Petitioner an assessee to Income Tax filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2018-19 which is stated to have been accepted by the respondent under Section 143(1) of the Act. Petitioner was served with notice under Section 148-A(b) of the Act on 23rd March, 2022. As per the said notice, information in the case of the assessee has been flagged on the Insight Portal in accordance with Risk Management Strategy Formulated by the CBDT, New Delhi. As per which, during search at the residence of one Sumit Jindal, some documents were seized and it has come to the notice that RKS Builders have made payments of Rs.4,07,50,000/- for the purpose of purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1) and others - Writ Petition No.546 of 2022, decided on 15th February, 2022 and law laid down by Delhi High Court in the case of 'Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax', 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10863. 5. Senior Counsel further asserts that the firm i.e. M/s RKS Builders and the petitioner are different individuals and different assessees for the purpose of Income Tax Act thus, for any escapement of income at the hands of firm he ought not have been saddled with the proceedings of reassessment. 6. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. 8. Question as to whether High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, has been subject matter of continuous debate over the years. The Apex Court in the case of C.A. Abraham vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam and another, AIR 1961 SC 609 observed that - "3. In our view the petition filed by the appellant should not have been entertained. The Income Tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax and imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Income Tax authorities, and the appellant could not be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 SCC 444, wherein the assessee had approached this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court which had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the assessee wherein challenge was made to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Authority on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the assessee. This Court concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the High Court and dismissed the said appeal with the following observations: "5. This and the other facts cannot be taken up for consideration by this Court for the first time. In our opinion, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that it is appropriate for the appellants to file a reply to the show-cause notice and take whatever defence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.' 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1983 2 SCC 433 this Court observed : (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) "11. ... It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle 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'." 10. Recently, Apex Court summarized the principles governing exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of alternate remedy in case of 'Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334', holding that - "28. The principles of law which emerge are that : (i) The power under Article 226 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
