SHAJI KUMAR, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/10278/2023HC KeralaKLHC01023250202319 March 2024Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it should not entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when a statutory remedy of appeal is available. The court noted that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, no infraction of law apparent on the face of the record, and the assessment order was not passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was left with the liberty to approach the appellate authority if advised. The specific findings on the merits of the assessment, such as the unexplained cash deposits or the reassessed income, were not decided by the High Court as it dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shaji Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated February 24, 2023, for the assessment year 2018-2019. The assessment was made under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's case was selected for scrutiny via a notice under Section 148 due to unexplained cash deposits. The petitioner initially filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 4,42,570/-. However, the assessment was completed, determining the total income at Rs. 7,09,26,770/-. The petitioner approached the High Court instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law, turning on the principles governing writ jurisdiction). The assessee (petitioner) contended that the assessment order was flawed and sought to challenge it directly through a writ petition. The revenue (respondent) did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in this judgment regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, as the court focused on the existence of the alternative remedy. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue on the merits of the assessment itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 10278 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: SHAJI KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SRI SANKARAN, PONNATH HOUSE , PAYYANKAKKAL, CALICUT, PIN - 673003 BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN M.SHYLAJA RISHAL.K RESPONDENT/S: 1 INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 1(3) , AAYAKAR BHAVAN , MANANCHIRA , CALICUT, PIN - 673001 2 THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, 110001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM OTHER PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 10278 OF 2023 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of March, 2024 The present writ petition has been filed impugning the assessment order in Ext.P1 dated 24.02.2023, in respect of the assessment year 2018-2019 under Section 147 r/w Section 144, 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (‘the IT Act’ for short).

2.

The petitioner case was selected for Scrutiny by issuing notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The petitioner has made unexplained cash deposits. The petitioner had filed return of his income in response to the notice issued under Section 148 showing total income of Rs.4,42,570/-. The assessment however, got completed at total income of Rs. 7,09,26,770/-.

3.

There is statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order. Instead of approaching the statutory appellate authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the assessment order. There is neither any violation of principle of natural justice nor any infraction of law on the face of the record nor the impugned assessment

WP(C) NO. 10278 OF 2023 3 order is without jurisdiction, which requires this court to entertain this writ petition against the assessment order, particularly when there is a remedy of appeal, provided under the statute itself. In view thereof, this court finds no ground to entertain this writ petition which is hereby dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, if he so advised. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SJ

WP(C) NO. 10278 OF 2023 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10278/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P-1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT. 24.02.2023 FOR AY 2018.19 BY FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P-2 PHOTOCOPY OF TRADING/PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR FY 2017.18 EXHIBIT-P-3 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE U/S 148A DT. 09.03.2022 FOR 2018.19 EXHIBIT-P-4 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DT. 24.03.2022 EXHIBIT-P-5 PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 09.02.2023 BY RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P-6 REPLY UPLOADED ON 14.02.2023 TO EXT. P-5 NOTICE EXHIBIT-P-7 PHOTOCOPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH REPLY TO EXT. P-5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →