CHANDRAN SARATH, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/8758/2024HC KeralaKLHC01088488202420 March 2024Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there were no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The Court found that an equally efficacious statutory remedy of filing a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was available to the petitioner against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court explicitly left it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of a second appeal if they were so advised. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment or the appeal before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Chandran Sarath, an assessee engaged in the cashew business, is challenging an assessment order for assessment year 2015-16. The assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 22, 2022. The order demanded tax and penalty on an alleged escaped income of Rs. 2,08,64,696. The petitioner appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an equally efficacious alternative remedy of a second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner, as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case. The assessee has approached the High Court by filing the writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the merits of the case. The revenue is represented by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 253

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 WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 8758 OF 2024 PETITIONER: CHANDRAN SARATH, AGED 40 YEARS SINDHU SADANAM, THUVAYOOR NORTH, MANAKKALA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 691551 BY ADVS. ANIL D. NAIR (SR.) TELMA RAJU ADITYA UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. P.G.JAYASHANKAR CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM P.R.AJITH KUMAR(K/000708/1998) SRI. P.G. JAYSHANKAR-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No. 8758 of 2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 20th day of March, 2024 The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying and selling of cashew, in the name and style of Sree Bhadra Cashew Company. The assessment for the assessment year 2015-16 was completed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 22.03.2022. As per the assessment order, the gross income, which escaped assessment was Rs.2,08,64,696/-, on which tax and penalty etc., has been demanded. 2. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal has been dismissed vide Ext.P3 order. There is a remedy of filing 2nd appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the said impugned order.

WP(C) No. 8758 of 2024 3 3. This Court finds no ground to entertain this writ petition inasmuch as there is equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner of filing the 2nd appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of 2nd appeal, if he is so advised. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP

WP(C) No. 8758 of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8758/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.3.2022 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.35 ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →