RAMESH BRIJMOHAN POKHRIYAL vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEP. AND ANR

PDF · subscribers

WP/552/2025HC BombayHCBM01063323202403 March 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner's challenge to the scrutiny assessment selection was vague and broad. Crucially, the Court found that the Petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act. These remedies include raising the very contentions made in the writ petition during the 143(2) proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, if the Petitioner remained dissatisfied with the final assessment order, they could pursue further appeals under the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of these statutory remedies. All contentions of both parties were kept open to be raised before the Assessing Officer and other relevant authorities. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Petitioner's claim regarding CBDT guidelines or the circular.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Ramesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 19, 2024, which selected his case for scrutiny assessment. The Petitioner contended that this selection was contrary to CBDT guidelines and a circular dated May 3, 2024. The respondents were the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department and another entity. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard the arguments from both the Petitioner and the Respondent Income Tax Department. The Court noted that the Petitioner's challenges were vague and broad. The Court also observed that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available under the Income Tax Act to address his grievances, including raising these issues during the 143(2) proceedings before the Assessing Officer and challenging any subsequent assessment orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the selection of the Petitioner's case for scrutiny assessment, vide notice dated June 19, 2024, is contrary to the CBDT guidelines and the circular dated May 3, 2024? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness of assessment selection). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the selection for scrutiny assessment was made in violation of the prevailing CBDT guidelines and the circular dated May 3, 2024. The Petitioner relied on these guidelines and the circular to assert that the selection process was flawed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the Respondent – Income Tax Department appeared. However, no specific arguments made by the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(5) WP-552.25.DOCX lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 552 OF 2025 Ramesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal : Petitioner Versus The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. : Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr Mayuresh Lagu i/by Mr Sagar Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondent – Income Tax Department. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 03 March 2025 PC:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned notice dated 19 June 2024 selecting the Petitioner’s case for scrutiny assessment. The only argument is that this selection is contrary to the CBDT guidelines and without adhering to the circular dated 03 May 2024. 3. Apart from the Petition raising extremely vague and broadways challenges, we think that this is an issue which the Petitioner can raise during the 143(2) proceedings before the Assessing Officer. If the Petitioner is ultimately dis-satisfied with the assessment, the Petitioner has ample remedies under LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2025.03.03 16:32:54 +0530

(5) WP-552.25.DOCX the Income Tax Act to challenge such assessment orders, including by raising the pleas now raised in this Petition.

For the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition.

This Petition is dismissed but with liberty in the above terms.

All contentions of all parties, including the Petitioner’s contentions now raised in this Petition are kept open to be raised before the Assessing Officer and other authorities under the Income Tax Act.

No costs. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →