Vijay Vasant Kulkarni Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not justified as alternate and efficacious remedy already available with the petitioner. Hence, writ petition dismissed.
Facts- The petitioner is an individual. Post conclusion of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner has filed letters with the assessing officer on 17 August 2018 and 27 August 2018, which are stated to be a reply to the audit objection of the revenue on deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and on income from house property.
On 28 March 2021, the petitioner was served with a notice u/s. 148 of the Act proposing to reassess the income for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner objected to the reopening. On 25 March 2022, an order rejecting the above objection came to be passed. Thereafter, on 29 March 2022, an assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 B came to be passed, making additions /disallowance on account of “income from house property” amounting to Rs.46,85,625/- and disallowance of deduction u/s. 54F to the extent of Rs.3,86,95,545/-. The income was reassessed at Rs.10,86,36,149/- and a demand of Rs.2,65,22,019/- came to be raised. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner approached this Court through the present petition.
