KUNDIL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED THR. DIRECTOR, IVEN ISABEL ASSUNCAO BOTELHO vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not entertain the writ petition, holding that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that there was no clarity on whether the petitioner had informed the tax authorities about their change of address. Therefore, it was not a clear case of 'no notice'. The Court deemed it appropriate for the appellate authority to examine the factual aspects of the case, including the contention about the notice and the merits of the assessment. The Court expressly kept open the contentions regarding 'no notice' or 'inadequate notice' and the contentions on merits for determination by the appellate authority. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of appeal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kundil Realty Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 21, 2023, and subsequent demand notices. The petitioner's counsel argued that a Section 148-A notice was issued to the petitioner's old address, preventing them from availing opportunities before the Assessing Officer. The counsel contended that issuing notice at an old address is equivalent to no notice. The petitioner also argued that their bank statements would show their originally filed returns were correct and no income had escaped assessment. The Revenue's contentions are not recorded.
What were the issues?
1. Whether this Court should entertain the writ petition when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act, despite the petitioner's contention that a Section 148-A notice was issued at an incorrect address, thereby vitiating the assessment proceedings. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of alternative remedy and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act). Assessee's argument: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148-A notice at an old address rendered the subsequent assessment order invalid, as it deprived them of an opportunity to be heard. They also contended that the merits of the assessment, regarding escaped income, would be evident from their bank statements, suggesting the original returns were correct. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP 134 of 2024 Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.134 OF 2024 KUNDIL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED THR. DIRECTOR, IVEN ISABEL ASSUNCAO BOTELHO ... PETITIONER Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ... RESPONDENT Ms Asha A. Desai with Ms Natasha Volvoikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM:- M. S. SONAK & VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATED :- 6th February, 2024 P.C.: Heard Ms Asha Desai for the petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 and the demand notices raised upon the petitioner based upon such assessment order. 3. Ms Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, agrees that the petitioner has remedy of an appeal against the assessment order. However, she submits that this is a case where Section 148-A notice was issued to the petitioner on the earlier address. She submits that therefore the petitioner could not avail of any opportunity before the Page 1 of 3 6th February, 2024
WP 134 of 2024 Assessing Officer. She says that issuing notice at the old address is as good as issuing no notice at all and, therefore, this Court should entertain the present petition. 4. Ms Desai states that the impugned demand notices require the petitioner to deposit 20% of the assessed amount. She submits that if the bank statements of the petitioners are perused, it would be evident that the returns originally filed by the petitioner were correct and no income had escaped assessment. 5. We have considered Ms Desai's submissions. Since the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the Act, there is no reason to entertain this petition. There is no clarity on whether the petitioner had ever intimated the taxing authorities about the change of address. Therefore, this is not a clear case of no notice and it would be appropriate if the appellate authority examines the factual aspects and decides the matter one way or the other. The contention about no notice or no adequate notice is however kept open. The contentions on merits are also kept open. 6. For the above reasons, this petition is not entertained but liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy available under the Income Tax Act. All contentions of all parties are expressly left open for determination by the appellate authority should the petitioner resort to the remedy of appeal. Page 2 of 3 6th February, 2024
WP 134 of 2024 7. This petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms. There shall be no order for costs. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J. M. S. SONAK, J. Page 3 of 3 6th February, 2024 NITI K HALDANKAR Digitally signed by NITI K HALDANKAR Date: 2024.02.07 14:39:33 +05'30'
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
