P. K. RAJU, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/19592/2021HC KeralaKLHC01050944202120 September 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was premature. The Court observed that Ext.P7 was only a notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to re-open assessment proceedings. The petitioner had an effective alternative remedy to appear before the concerned officer and file necessary objections. Therefore, invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 at this stage was inappropriate. The Court dismissed the writ petition, reserving the petitioner's right to pursue remedies before the statutory authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, P.K. Raju, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging Ext.P5 and Ext.P7. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that Ext.P7 is merely a notice issued under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to re-open assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner could appear before the concerned officer and file objections at this stage. The writ petition was considered premature as an alternative remedy was available.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the stage of a notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an alternative remedy is available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 and Ext.P7, implying a grievance against the proposed re-opening of assessment. (Implicit in filing the writ petition). Revenue's Contention: Ext.P7 is only a notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to re-open assessment proceedings. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to appear before the assessing officer and file objections. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19592 OF 2021 PETITIONER: P. K. RAJU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. KURIAN, ARBEE AGENCIES, KARIPPADAM P. O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM - 686 605. BY ADVS. SRI. LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SRI. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE AND TPS, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM. SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.19592 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P7. At the outset itself the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Sri.Jose Joseph points out that, Ext.P7 is only a notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, proposing to re-open the assessment proceedings. 2. It is true that Ext.P7 is only a notice. Petitioner can at this stage appear before the officer concerned and invite an order after filing the necessary objections. The writ petition is therefore premature and the remedy under Article 226 is not to be invoked at this stage. When alternative remedy exist, Article 226 is not to be invoked. Since there is an effective alternative remedy available and the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court is too premature, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. Hence, reserving the remedy of the petitioner before the statutory authority concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE SPR

WP(C).No.19592 OF 2021 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC 156 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC 143(3) DATED 11.09.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 13.10.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.154 DATED 23.01.2019. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.02.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 23.03.2021. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONFIRMING FILING OF RETURN. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.07.2021 ISSUED U/S. 143(2) R/W SEC 147. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →