MADHURI SAHAI W/O SHRI RAM MOHAN SAHAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6730/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02034262202422 July 2024Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ASHUTOSH KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner received notice under Section 153C on January 12, 2023, participated in the assessment proceedings, and only challenged the assessment order after it was passed. This conduct, where the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities and did not challenge the initiation of proceedings at the inception, was similar to the facts in the cited case of Smt. Rama Gupta. The Court found that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. The issue regarding the opportunity of hearing was also considered examinable by the appellate authorities, as it was not a case of total absence of hearing but rather an allegation of improper opportunity. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Madhuri Sahai, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 21, 2024. The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was based on the pre-amendment scheme of the section, which was deleted effective April 1, 2021. The petitioner also contended that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. The respondents argued that the petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C on January 12, 2023, without challenging the initiation of proceedings. They cited a previous High Court order in Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, where petitions were not entertained when the assessee submitted to jurisdiction and challenged only after the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law, considering its deletion effective April 1, 2021, and whether the assessment order passed pursuant to such initiation is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law as it was based on the pre-deletion scheme of the section. A proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. Revenue's Contention: The petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C and did not challenge the initiation of proceedings at the outset. The High Court has not entertained similar petitions in such circumstances, directing parties to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal, as per the decision in Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6730/2024 Madhuri Sahai W/o Shri Ram Mohan Sahai, aged about 88 years, R/o SP-15 Bhabha Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, 302004, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur, having its Address at Room No. 410, 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Jaipur, having its Address at Sidhnath Bhawan, Jaipur Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302015. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur, having its Address at Room No. 410, 4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Hora Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate, Ms. Kriti Kalawatia Advocate and Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 22/07/2024

1.

Heard.

2.

This writ petition has been filed against assessment order dated 21.03.2024 on the submission that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(2 of 3) [CW-6730/2024] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was bad in law as the (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9309/2024), would submit that in cases where issuance of notice at the very inception was not challenged but the assessee submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority and sought to challenge only after the assessment order was passed, this Court has not exercised its discretion to entertain the petition and allowed the parties to exhaust statutory alternative remedy of appeal.

4.

In the present case, on facts also, we find that notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued to the petitioner way back on 12.01.2023. The petitioner did not challenge the initiation of proceedings and submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities and participated in the assessment proceedings. It is only when the assessment order is passed that the petitioner seeks to challenge the same by filing present writ petition. The issue with regard to opportunity of hearing can also be examined by the authorities concerned because it is not a case of total absence of opportunity of hearing and the allegation is that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded.

(3 of 3) [CW-6730/2024]

5.

In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this writ petition because there exists statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal to challenge the assessment order.

6.

Writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal available to her under the law.

7.

Taking into consideration that this writ petition was filed before expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, it is directed that in case, the petitioner prefers an appeal within 30 days, the appeal shall be heard and decided by the Appellate Authority on its own merits without going into the issue of limitation. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI /19

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →