SURINDER VIRENDER KATHURIA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
WP/12474/2024HC BombayHCBM01019206202403 March 2025Bench: 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 had an alternate remedy of appeal available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and had already availed of this remedy after filing the writ petition. Furthermore, the Court found the issue regarding alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice to be debatable. Consequently, the High Court held that matters concerning the adequacy of time granted and other contentions raised in the petition were best decided by the appellate authority. The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the already instituted appeal, with all contentions of both parties left open for the appellate authority to decide.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Surinder Virender Kathuria, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an assessment order dated March 5, 2024, passed under Sections 114 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner contended that inadequate time was granted for compliance. The Respondent, Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, argued that ample opportunities were provided. The Petitioner initially claimed no alternate remedy was available, but later stated, through counsel, that an appeal had already been filed after the writ petition was instituted. The High Court noted that the issue of alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice was debatable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner was granted adequate time to comply with the assessment proceedings, and if not, whether this constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice, thereby warranting interference by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that inadequate time was granted for compliance, implying a violation of natural justice. The Petitioner also incorrectly stated that no alternate remedy was available. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent contended that the impugned assessment order and the records showed that ample opportunities were granted to the Petitioner. The Respondent also pointed out that an alternate remedy of appeal was available and had been availed of by the Petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

14-WP-12474-2024.DOCX Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12474 OF 2024 Surinder Virender Kathuria …Petitioner Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr Laukik Palekar, with Mr Akshay Zantye for the Petitioner. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, with Mr Shradha Worlikar, for the Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 03 March 2025 PC:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges assessment order dated 5 March 2024 under Sections 114 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax, 1961. 3. In paragraph 24, the Petitioner has incorrectly stated that he has no alternate remedy available. There is not only an alternate remedy of appeal available under the Act but the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, based on instructions states that the Petitioner has already availed of such remedy after the institution of this Petition. Besides, this is a matter where Page 1 of 2 AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.03.04 14:57:27 +0530

14-WP-12474-2024.DOCX the issue regarding alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice is, at the best, a debatable one. 4. The Petitioner alleges that inadequate time was granted. The Respondent by referring to the impugned order and the column “details of opportunity is given” submits that ample opportunities were granted to the Petitioner. We think that all those matters are best decided in the Appeal that the Petitioner has already instituted against the impugned order. 5. For the above reasons, we dismiss this Petition but with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the Appeal already instituted. All contentions of all parties, including the contentions now raised in this Petition are however left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance. 6. This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 114

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →