Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner had not exhausted alternate remedies.
Summary in Key Points:
- Issue: Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable when the assessee has an alternate remedy of appeal available under the Act.
- Facts: The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice and passed an assessment order for the relevant assessment year. The petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased assessee, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order, claiming a violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the notices were duly served, and the petitioner was represented before the AO.
- Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal provided under the Income-tax Act instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Analysis:
The High Court ruled in favor of the revenue department, dismissing the writ petition. The court emphasized the following:
- Jurisdiction of AO: The assessment order was passed by the AO having jurisdiction in the matter, and there was no apparent violation of the principles of natural justice.
- Availability of Alternate Remedy: The petitioner had the alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Avoidance of Writ Jurisdiction: When an effective alternate remedy is available, the High Court generally discourages the use of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Important Note: This case reiterates the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The High Court emphasized that the petitioner should exhaust the available appellate remedies under the Income-tax Act before approaching the court. This ensures that the specialized appellate authorities have the first opportunity to address the issues in dispute and promotes an efficient and orderly resolution of tax disputes.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
Sneh Gupta
v.
Union of India
Sanjeev Kumar AND Puneet Gupta, JJ.
WP(C) No.1554 of 2023
DECEMBER 23, 2024
Suraj Singh Wazir, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Vide order dated 18.12.2024, Mr. Sachin Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked to obtain instructions from his client as to whether prior to 29.05.2023, any notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon legal heirs of the Assessee-Late Sneh Gupta. He was also called upon to apprise this Court as to the persons who had received notices issued by the Assessing Authority dated 17.01.2023 and 28.02.2023 under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate has not come present. However, Mr. Suraj Singh Wazir, Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the Assessee-Late Sneh Gupta had died in the year 2015 and, therefore, all notices including those reference to which is made by this Court in order dated 18.12.2024, as per records, have been issued to the legal heir of Lt. Sneh Gupta namely, Sahil Mahajan.
3. In view of the aforesaid position emerging from the official records, it cannot be said by the petitioner Sh. Sahil Mahajan that the order impugned in the writ petition is passed by the Assessing Authority in violation of the principles of natural justice. That being the position, the order of assessment, impugned in this petition, dated 31st May, 2023 for the assessment year 20142015, is appealable before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Act provides hierarchy of different adjudicating authorities for redressal of disputes arising out of and under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Even, further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is also provided.
4. The petitioner, without exhausting the statutory remedies provided under the Income Tax Act, has approached this Court directly invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are aware that availability of alternative remedy is not a complete bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court may, in its discretion, entertain a petition directly against an order of the assessment, provided it is demonstrated that the impugned order of Assessment is passed by an incompetent authority or that the same suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition can also be entertained, in case the vires of any statutory provision is subject matter of challenge in the petition.
5. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of Assessment is in violation of the principles of natural justice. We have enquired into this aspect of the matter and as noted above, the notices had been duly served upon Sh. Sahil Mahajan, the legal heir of Late Sneh Gupta, who was well represented before the Assessing Authority.
6. Having considered the matter and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions enumerated hereinabove. The order impugned is passed by the Assessing Authority having jurisdiction in the matter and that there is no apparent violation of the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that no provision of Income Tax Act is under challenge in this petition.
7. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and instead relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in case, he wishes to challenge the impugned order of assessment.
8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the Income Tax Act. We, however, provide that in case the petitioner chooses to file statutory appeal before the appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act, the period spent by him in this Court shall not be reckoned while computing the period of limitation.