M/S SHIVASHAKTI INDUSTRIES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/63809/2010HC KarnatakaKAHC02013341201011 September 2020Bench: S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that as against the impugned assessment order, the petitioner is entitled to an equally efficacious and alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to challenge the assessment order by way of an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file the appeal within thirty days from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and to entertain the appeal without raising any objection on the point of limitation. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Shivashakti Industries, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging an assessment order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Officer (Ward-I, Gadag) under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this assessment order, the petitioner had first filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was rejected by an order dated 18.03.2009. The petitioner then approached the High Court via the present writ petition, seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent assessment of income not relating to the year in question. The assessment order was passed by the 2nd respondent, and the Commissioner of Income Tax was the 1st respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to the petitioner? Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the assessment of income beyond the scope of the assessment year and charge of tax. The petitioner did not explicitly argue before the High Court in the provided text, but their action of filing a writ petition implies a grievance with the assessment order and the rejection of their revision petition. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, did not present arguments in the provided text. However, the court's observation that an alternative remedy exists implies the revenue would likely contend that the writ petition is not maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.63809/2010 (T-IT)

BETWEEN M/S. SHIVASHAKTI INDUSTRIES C-7/8, KSSIDC ESTATE, GADAG, REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHASHIKANT S/O SHIDRAMAPPA SANKANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,

P.B. ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-25.

2.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I

GADAG.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. TULAJAPPA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOT TO ASSESS SUCH INCOME WHICH IS NOT RELATING TO THE YEAR IN QUESTION AS ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSEMENT ORDER DATED 28.02.2007 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS BEYOND SCOPE OF INCOME AND CHARGE OF TAX AND ETC..

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINATY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned assessment order at Annexure-A dated 28.02.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, instead of preferring an appeal before the appropriate appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the 1st respondent which was rejected by the 1st respondent under the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 18.03.2009. Aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexures-A and G, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present writ petition. 2. It is not in dispute that as against the impugned orders at Annexure-A, the petitioner is entitled to equally efficacious and alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 246 of the

3 Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘Act’). Under these circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to challenge Annexure-A by way of an appeal before the appellate Authority under Section 246 of the Act. 3. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a) This writ petition is hereby disposed of. b) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order datedat Annexure-A before the appropriate appellate Authority within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. c) If such an appeal is filed, the appellate Authority is directed to consider and dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law. d) The appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal to be filed by the petitioner without raising any objection on the point of limitation.

4 Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

SD JUDGE

JTR

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →