Case Law Details
Rakesh Beniyal Vs ITO (Assessment) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently addressed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 06.03.2024. The petitioner claimed that a business account was opened in their name without their knowledge, and alleged income was remitted into the account, which they had no connection to. However, the court found that the disputed facts regarding the bank account opening were not suitable for proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they were employed as a clerk in a spinning mill and had a meager salary, making it improbable for them to be involved in the transactions leading to the re-assessment proceedings. They also claimed that another individual, Mr. Prakash Muthuswamy, who was employed as Operation head/branch Manager in the Axis Bank, was involved in the transactions.
The court, after considering the submissions, noted that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.3848 of 2023), which was dismissed. Subsequently, the present writ petition was filed after the assessment order was issued. However, the court emphasized that the claims regarding the bank account and transactions were disputed questions of fact that could not be conveniently addressed in proceedings under Article 226.
The court highlighted that statutory remedies, such as a statutory appeal, were available to the petitioner against the assessment order. Therefore, it concluded that no case was made out for interference under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being advised to avail themselves of the statutory remedy. No costs were awarded in the matter.
In summary, the decision in Rakesh Beniyal Vs ITO (Assessment) underscores the limitations of Article 226 proceedings in addressing disputed factual issues, particularly regarding assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It reaffirms the availability of statutory remedies for aggrieved parties in such cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An assessment order dated 06.03.2024 is challenged in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner asserts that a business account (current account) was opened in the petitioner’s name in the third respondent bank without the knowledge of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the alleged escaped income of Rs.1,09,25,580/- was remitted into the said account and that the petitioner has no connection to such remittance. After lodging a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Erode District, and obtaining CSR.No.419 of 2023, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed as a clerk in a spinning mill and was drawing a meagre salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. She further submits that the transactions that resulted in the re-assessment proceedings were on account of the involvement of one Mr. Prakash Muthuswamy, who was employed as Operation head/branch Manager in the Axis Bank. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner be granted interim protection until a statutory appeal is filed.
4. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the second and fourth respondents.
5. By referring to the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023, Dr. B. Ramaswamy, learned senior standing counsel, submits that credits to the extent of Rs.1,09,25,580/- and debits to the extent of Rs.51,50,000/- were made in the bank account of the petitioner during the relevant financial year. He further submits that the impugned assessment order was issued after following the procedure in respect of re-assessment by issuing notice under Section 148A(b) order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, he submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned assessment order.
6. From the averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3848 of 2023 earlier. The said writ petition was dismissed. After the assessment order was issued, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner contends that a bank account was opened in his name without his knowledge and that transactions in such account resulted in the assessment order. These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently addressed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As against the assessment order, a statutory appeal is available to the petitioner. Consequently, no case is made out for interference under Article 226.
7. For reasons set out above, W.P.No.8865 of 2024 is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Author Bio
