9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d seeking details mentioned in annexure to the letter. The petitioner has enclosed undated replies to this notice in the present petition. On 5 October 2017, an assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the said Act came to be passed accepting the return of income. In the said return, there is no discussion of any issue except stating that on change of the officer, the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner attended from time to time and filed various details. 3. The replies said to have been filed during the assessment proceedings do not bear any acknowledgment of the same having filed with revenue during the assessment proceedings. 4. Post conclusion of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner has filed letters with the assessing officer on 17 August 2018 and 27 August 2018, which are stated to be a reply to the audit objection of the revenue on deduction under Section 54F of the Act and on income from house property. 5. On 28 March 2021, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act proposing to reassess the income for the assessment year 2015-16. On 30 June 2021, the petitioner was supplied with reasons for reopening. Briefly, the reasons record that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant time. Learned counsel further submitted that both these issues were examined during the assessment proceeding and, therefore, the impugned proceeding would amount to a change of opinion, which is not permissible under the Act. The petitioner also submitted that the proceedings have been issued without proper sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that no sufficient opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order since between the date of order rejecting the objection and final assessment order only 3 days were available. He also submitted that reassessment is based on the audit party's borrowed satisfaction. 10. Mr. Padvekar learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decision in the case of Jayant Dave Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Writ Petition No.5087 of 2022, Union of India Vs Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), Sidhmicro Equities (P.) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Incoem-tax (2023) 150 taxmann.com 460 (Bombay), Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sidhmicro Equities (P.) Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 461 (SC) and Asian Paints Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2008) 296 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould entertain the writ when there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under the Act. We have recently in the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2025) 137 GSTR 601, have analysed the law on this subject, and by following the same, we reject the petitioner's contention that this Court should exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 14. In any case, we propose to examine whether this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to examine the validity of reassessment proceedings in the present case. 15. The issue of whether, on account of TOLA provisions, proviso to Section 147 of the Act would be applicable or not was not raised by the petitioner in its objections. This issue has been raised for the first time before this Court. In our view, if the objection has not been raised before the assessing officer, it would not be fair to raise such an objection in Writ Petition for the first time to challenge the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 16. The petitioner has filed undated letters to show that the issue of Section 54F was examined during the assessment proceedings and, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to the decision of this Court in the case of Asian Paints (Supra) can be examined by the Appellate Authority, which has the power to adjudicate upon the same and the consequences thereto. It is also important to note that the petitioner has participated in the reassessment proceedings despite the officer not disposing of the objection observed in the assessment order. The petitioner, vide letter dated 28 March 2022, has made his detailed submissions on the merits of the case without raising any objection on the insufficiency of time between the order rejecting objection and the time given for reply. On 17 January 2022, the petitioner has filed detailed submissions on the merits again without objecting the respondents not having passed any order disposing of the objections. Therefore, in our view, the petitioner cannot now raise this contention before the Writ Court. However, the petitioner is free to raise this issue before the Appellate Authority. 21. We now deal with the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Jayant Dave (Supra) is not applicable since, in that case, there was no issue r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
