M/S PRECISION ENGINEERING vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WA/336/2019HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01021487201928 July 2019Author: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter involved a fact-finding exercise that could be effectively pursued before the competent statutory authority. Therefore, it was not a matter for discussion and finalization under the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no irregularity or illegality in the learned Single Judge's order. The appeal was dismissed, with a clarification that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appellant was free to establish the merits before the statutory authority. It was further clarified that the specific contention of the appellant regarding double taxation, due to having already satisfied the tax, would be considered and specifically answered by the competent authority during the reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Precision Engineering, a proprietorship firm, filed its return for assessment year 2013-14 and paid the tax due. The Revenue, based on information gathered through a survey under Section 133(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. The assessee challenged these reassessment proceedings by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that the matter could be effectively challenged before the statutory authority. The assessee appealed this decision, citing that the disputed portion of tax had already been paid and this fact should have been considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in declining interference with the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relegating the assessee to the statutory authority? (Question of law and fact turning on Section 147 and Section 148). Assessee's contentions: The learned Single Judge erred in relegating the appellant to the statutory authority because the tax on the disputed portion had already been paid, a fact that should have been considered by the authorities and the Single Judge. Revenue's contentions: The assessee's version is not correct, and the matter is primarily a question of fact. The Revenue argued that the matter involves fact-finding exercise which can be effectively prosecuted before the competent statutory authority and is not a matter for the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 133(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 336 of 2019 {Arising out of Order dated 05/04/2019 passed in Writ Petition(T) No. 238 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge}

1.

M/s Precision Engineering A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At HIG-14, SBVP Nagar, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Proprietor Idicula Jacob, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Shri Idicula Jacob, R/o HIG- 14, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2.

Idicula Jacob S/o Shri Idicula Aged About 65 Years R/o Hig-14, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

----Appellants VERSUS

1.

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle- Korba, Office Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2.

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range- Korba, Office Of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika, Road, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

3.

The Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. -------Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-Revenue : Ms. Nausina Afreen Ali, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice. 29/07/2019

1.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.

2.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally.

2

3.

The correctnesses and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised as to re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this appeal.

4.

Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing the respondent- revenue.

5.

The sequence of events reveals that the appellant Proprietorship concern submitted necessary returns for the assessment year 2013-14 and satisfied by the tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected by way of Survey under Section 133(A) of the Act, the adjudication officer initiated proceeding for re-assessment of the income and notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act, which made the writ petitioner/assessee to challenge it by filing writ petition.

6.

The nature of challenge was considered and after hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge observed that, it was a matter which could be effectively challenged by approaching the statutory authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise to the present appeal.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the relegation of the appellant to move the statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, in respect of the disputed portion, the tax was already been paid by the appellant and this should have been properly looked into by the authorities and also by the learned Single Judge.

8.

The learned standing counsel for the department of revenue submits that the version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more a 3 question of fact. After hearing, we are of the view that the matter involves some fact finding exercise and the same can be effectively prosecuted before the competent authority under the statute, which cannot be a matter for discussion and finalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9.

In the said circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, much less any illegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case. It is always open for the appellant to establish the merit of the case before the statutory authority, based on the facts and the relevant provisions of law.

10.

It is further made clear that the specific case projected by the appellant/writ petitioner that, he having satisfied the tax, it would be a case of 'double taxation' shall also be considered and specifically answered by the competent authority while pursuing the proceedings as aforesaid. (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Pawan

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →