Case Law Details
Kedar Nath Babbar Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2017 was issued, which was responded by the petitioner vide his communication dated 17.04.2017. The respondent thereafter served a notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act dated 12.07.2017 whereby certain information was called from the petitioner. The respondent vide communication dated 17.07.2017 asked the petitioner for the supply of reason for filing the objections. The Assessing officer vide communication dated 09.08.2017 provided the petitioner with the copy of the reasons as recorded by the Assessing officer for reopening of the case. The reasons being recorded by the Assessing officer were quite detailed and self-explanatory. It was mentioned in the reasons that the entire amount given to his son by the petitioner, the interest has not been charged whereas the cash credit bank account from which amount was transferred to his son, the assessee had paid interest @ 14.33 per annum. The interest has been claimed by the assesse as revenue expenses which reduced taxable income of assessee for the year under consideration.
As on 01.04.2009, the assessee had shown loan outstanding to his son at Rs.3,64,519/- and during the year under consideration, the assesse had given amount of Rs.1,64,51,600/- to his son out of which amount of Rs.13,40,000/- was received back with the remaining closing balance of Rs.1,54,76,119/-.
The objections were filed by the petitioner in which the case of the petitioner as discussed hereinabove was reiterated. The objections were duly disposed of by the Assessing officer vide order dated 30.10.2017. The order disposing of the objections is also detailed one. It was stated that notice dated 28.03.2017 was issued after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The judgment cited by the assessee was also duly discussed and considered by the Assessing officer. Vide communication dated 06.11.2017, the petitioner was asked for certain enclosures referred to in the order dated 30.10.2017 and the same were duly supplied.
It is the settled proposition that the writ jurisdiction of the court is to be exercised under certain well established principles. The courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction very sparingly if there is „alternative efficacious remedy‟. The petitioner cannot be allowed to short circuit the procedure merely out of convenience. If a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
