Case Law Details
Smt. Rama Gupta Vs DCIT (Rajasthan High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the participation in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Smt. Rama Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). The court examined the circumstances under which a petitioner who engages in reassessment proceedings can challenge the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
The crux of the case revolves around the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on March 28, 2023. The petitioner, Smt. Rama Gupta, participated in the reassessment proceedings without initially challenging the notice. It was only after the reassessment order was passed that the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging both the notice and the reassessment order.
The court’s analysis began with the observation that the petitioner did not take any immediate legal remedy against the notice issued under Section 148. Participation in the reassessment proceedings without raising an initial objection indicated acceptance of the process to some extent. The petitioner sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India post facto, which the court was not inclined to entertain.
The respondent’s counsel argued that since the petitioner did not challenge the notice at the appropriate time and chose to participate in the reassessment proceedings, the appropriate course of action would be to pursue remedies through the appellate authorities as provided under the law. The court found this argument persuasive, noting that the statutory remedy was available and appropriate in this case.
In its judgment, the court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is not intended to bypass statutory remedies unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The court declined to intervene in the reassessment notice’s validity, particularly since the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge it during the reassessment process but did not do so. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to take all available legal grounds before the appellate authorities, including challenging the reassessment notices.
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Smt. Rama Gupta vs. DCIT highlights the judicial principle that statutory remedies should be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. This judgment reinforces the importance of following procedural steps and utilizing available remedies within the framework of the Income Tax Act. Petitioners are advised to promptly challenge reassessment notices if they have grounds to do so, rather than participating in proceedings and later seeking to invalidate the process through writ petitions. The court’s refusal to entertain the writ underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring adherence to procedural law and discourages bypassing statutory mechanisms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Heard.
2. Though notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is under challenge in this petition along with the order of assessment also, we find that the petitioner did not take any remedy against notice under Section 148 of the Act which was issued on 28.03.2023 but participated in the assessment proceedings. It is only after the passing of reassessment order that instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on an advance copy, would submit that in the circumstances when the petitioner has chosen not to challenge notice under Section 148 of the Act and participated in reassessment proceedings, this petition may not be entertained as the issue can be examined even by the Appellate Authority.
4. Taking into consideration the submissions and the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of challenge to the validity of notice dated 28.03.2023 particularly when the petitioner himself did not challenge the same, but participated in the reassessment proceedings.
5. The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds which are available to him under the law in the matter of challenge to reassessment order including the reassessment notices.
Author Bio
