THE JALNA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD JALNA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3885/2011HC BombayHCBM03014417201125 June 2014Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. BORDE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.L. ACHLIYA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, disposed of both writ petitions. The Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the Respondent-Revenue that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act had been issued, reassessment orders had been passed by the Assessing Officer on December 12, 2011, and the Assessee's appeals against these orders were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter had subsequently been carried in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In light of these developments, the Court found that the writ petitions did not deserve consideration. The Court clarified that it would be open for the Assessee to raise all grounds available in law before the Appellate Authority, including the question of the permissibility of reopening the matters under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. No specific issue was decided on merits; the petitions were disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy.

What were the facts?

The Jalna District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Jalna (the Assessee) filed two writ petitions (WP No. 3885 of 2011 and WP No. 4349 of 2011) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Department. The Revenue informed the Court that notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were issued, and reassessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer on December 12, 2011. The Assessee's appeals against these reassessment orders were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Assessee had carried the matter in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Given these subsequent developments, the Revenue argued that the writ petitions did not warrant consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given that the Assessee has alternative remedies before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? The Assessee's primary contention, implicitly, is that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 are invalid and that the High Court should intervene. The Revenue's argument is that since reassessment orders have been passed, the Assessee's appeals have been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the matter is now pending before the ITAT, the writ petitions are not the appropriate forum. The Revenue contends that the Assessee should pursue their remedies before the appellate authorities, where they can raise all available grounds, including the validity of the reopening under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 917 wp.3885.11 n wp.4349.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3885 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4349 OF 2011 THE JALNA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO. OP. BANK LTD. JALNA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD AND OTHERS … Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.M.Lomte, Advocate i/b Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak and Mr. M.K. Kulkarni. Advocate for Union of India : Mr. Alok Sharma. ... CORAM  : R. M. BORDE   and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE      : 25th  June, 2014. P.C.: . The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Revenue informs   that  after  issuance  of  notices   under  Section   148  of  the  Act, reassessment has been done by the Assessing Officer and orders have been issued on 12th December, 2011. The orders issued by the Assessing Officer are subjected to challenge before the Commissioner Appeal.  The Commissioner Appeal has also dismissed the appeals presented by the Assessee and as such, the matter has been carried in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.  In view of these developments as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Revenue, these petitions do not deserve consideration.  It would, however, be open

2 917 wp.3885.11 n wp.4349.11.sxw for the Assessee to raise all the grounds available in law before the Appellate Authority including the question of permissibility to reopen the matters by taking recourse to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2 In view of above, both the petitions stand disposed of. [ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ R. M. BORDE, J. ] ndm

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →