AKASH JAGDISH ISSRANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD AND ORS

Heard Mr Pritesh Burad for the Petitioner and Mr Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.

The Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7 April 2023 made under Section 1498A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) and the consequential impugned notice dated 7 April 2023 made under Section 148 of the IT Act.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material available record, we are satisfied that this is not a case in which we should exercise our extraordinary, discretionary, and equitable jurisdiction to assist the present Petitioner. This is more so because, should any AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.02.27 14:22:45 +0530 assessment order be made against him in pursuance of the impugned notice, the petitioner has several alternate and efficacious remedies to contest it.

The allegations against the Petitioner are set out in the communication dated 12 March 2021 on pages 25 to 28 of the Petition. We are not adverting to those allegations because we do not wish to prejudice the Petitioner during the assessment proceedings or in the subsequent remedies should the Petitioner choose to avail of the same. Suffice it to note that the allegations are serious, and it would not be fair to interdict the proceedings at this stage based on the contentions urged.

In this case, after the Petitioner received a show-cause notice, he chose not to respond. Mr Pritesh Burad submits that there was no obligation to reply since, according to the petitioner, the notice lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner assumed that the impugned notice was ex facie without jurisdiction and not deserving of any response. This approach is not commendable. The purpose of issuing a notice is to allow the assessee to respond, enabling the authorities to address such a response in the first instance.

The impugned order made under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act suggests that income chargeable to tax of Rs.8,45,79,035/- has escaped assessment, and therefore, this was a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148. Neither the order dated 7 April 2023 made under Section 148A(d) nor the notice under Section 148 issued pursuant thereto can, at least at this stage, be styled as wholly without jurisdiction. In any event, all contentions, including contentions relating to jurisdiction and limitation, etc., are not being dealt with at this stage so as not to prejudice the Petitioner or render it difficult to raise such issues during the assessment proceedings.

We only note that, given the facts of the present case and considering the Petitioner's attitude of not responding to the notices, no case is made to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and interdict further assessment proceedings. If the Petitioner is confident about his version, he may possibly get relief in the assessment proceedings. In any event, he can always question the assessment orders through the regular channels of appeals, etc., available under the IT Act. Accordingly, no case is made to entertain this Petition.

In the reply submitted on behalf of the Respondents, they referred to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sahajeevan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondents’ affidavit. This is yet another reason for not entertaining this petition.

In this matter, an investigation into disputed facts would also be necessary. Even the limitation issue, in the peculiar facts of this case, would be a mixed question of law and fact. As noted earlier, this is not a fit case to exercise our discretion and interdict the proceedings. Any such stalling of proceedings will impact the assessments of various assessees 1 In WP/1548/2023 covered by the allegations in the communication dated 12 March 2021. This communication refers to the vast amount of monies stacked in Shri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd and the modus operandi adopted by various assesses in hoarding and laundering these amounts.

Stalling the assessment proceedings at this stage would not be in the public interest. The discretion under Article 226 cannot be exercised merely because the Petitioner feels that he has some legal point based on which he ought to or might succeed. We are satisfied that the Petitioner will have ample opportunities to defend himself during the assessment proceedings. Should the assessment proceedings prejudice the Petitioner, then, in the regular remedies provided under the IT Act, question such assessment proceedings.

We dismiss this Petition and vacate the ad interim relief for all the above reasons. No costs.

However, all contentions of all parties are left open to be raised during assessment proceedings and in the statutory remedies as available under the IT Act. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)