SAYED MUHAMMED M, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/42235/2023HC KeralaKLHC01094497202315 January 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it should not entertain a writ petition against an appellate order when a statutory remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is available. The Court reasoned that Article 226 of the Constitution is a public law remedy and not an appellate power to review orders passed by assessing or appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal if he so advised. The Court explicitly did not decide on the merits of the assessment or appellate orders, as it declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18, despite significant cash deposits noted in his accounts. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147, issuing notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1) which were not responded to by the petitioner. A show cause notice and draft assessment order were issued, and the petitioner explained that high-value transactions involved reimbursements for tour operator agency services where he used his personal credit card, with his income being commission below the taxable limit. However, he failed to provide supporting documents. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 144B, treating cash deposits of Rs. 1,15,03,870/- as unexplained under Section 69A and business income of Rs. 2,44,008/-, assessing total income at Rs. 1,17,47,880/-. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when a further statutory remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner under the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should be invoked. The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 2. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B and the appellate order passed under Section 250 are sustainable in law, considering the petitioner's explanation regarding tour operator agency services and credit card reimbursements? (Mixed question of law and fact) The petitioner contended that the amounts were reimbursements for business expenses and his income was commission below the taxable limit. The revenue implicitly argued that the lack of supporting evidence rendered the petitioner's explanation unsubstantiated, leading to the addition of unexplained cash deposits and business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under the provisions of the Act. Thus, the present writ petition is

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C) NO. 42235 OF 2023
TC 48/10

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

DATED 23.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.03.2022 EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 AOF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 AOF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 26AS FOR THE AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2022 EXHIBIT P11 AOF THE ORDER U/S 250 DATED 29.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →