ANSHU SAHAI THROUGH L/H SH. SIDDHARTH SAHAI (SON), SON OF LATE RAM MOHAN SAHAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6743/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02034309202422 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 had participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C on 10.02.2023, without challenging the initiation of those proceedings. The challenge was raised only after the assessment order was passed. The Court found that the issue regarding the opportunity of hearing could be examined by the appellate authorities, as it was not a case of total absence of hearing but rather an allegation of improper opportunity. Therefore, the Court held that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal exists to challenge the assessment order. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days, it shall be heard and decided on its merits without considering the issue of limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anshu Sahai, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 23.03.2024. The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid, particularly as it pertained to the scheme of Section 153C prior to its deletion effective 01.04.2021. The petitioner also argued that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. A notice under Section 153C was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.2023. The petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings without challenging the initiation of the proceedings. The writ petition was filed only after the assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law, considering the scheme of the section prior to its deletion effective 01.04.2021? 2. Whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid due to the applicability of the pre-amendment scheme. The petitioner also contended that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents, referring to a previous order of the Court in Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that in cases where the issuance of notice was not challenged initially, and the assessee submitted to jurisdiction, challenging only after the assessment order, the Court should not entertain the writ petition and should direct the assessee to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of appeal.

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
[2024:RJ-JP:30630-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6743/2024 Anshu Sahai through L/h Sh. Siddharth Sahai (Son), Son of Late Ram Mohan Sahai, R/o SP- 15 Bhabha Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302004. ----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. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT, Circle -7, 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 23.03.2024 on the submission that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was bad in law as the

[2024:RJ-JP:30630-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6743/2024] (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 10.02.2023. 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.

[2024:RJ-JP:30630-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6743/2024]

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 him 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 /20

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →