Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.A.Nos.2759 & 2766 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/10/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed the writ appeals filed by Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) challenging the common order dated 29.03.2023. The order, issued in response to W.P.Nos.9142 and 9145 of 2023, dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the lack of extraordinary circumstances to intervene with the assessment order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the assessing authority.

Background

The appellant contested the assessment order and the demand notice, arguing that the order of assessment, which proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme, exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. The appellant claimed that this violated Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Additionally, it was contended that the impugned show cause notice failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and rules, as it did not provide for the refund of the entitled amount. The appellant argued that both the assessment order and the show cause notice were issued without jurisdiction and should be set aside.

The learned Judge rejected the writ petitions, asserting that the appellant should pursue the statutory appeal filed in January 2023. The court considered the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an extraordinary one, concluding that it was invoked as an afterthought and that no extraordinary circumstances were present.

Writ Appeals

The appellant, dissatisfied with the common order, filed the present writ appeals challenging the decision of the learned Judge. The appellant’s senior counsel argued that the assessment order violated Section 144B of the Income-tax Act and that the order went beyond the proposed variations outlined in the show cause notice, rendering it jurisdictionally flawed. The counsel contended that the violation of principles of natural justice and jurisdictional issues constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the court’s intervention under Article 226.

Court’s Decision

After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court carefully examined the materials on record. The court noted the specific grounds raised by the appellant, emphasizing the jurisdictional issues and the violation of principles of natural justice. Critically, the court held that the learned Judge had not addressed these aspects, along with the case laws and oral submissions presented during the hearing of the writ petitions.

The High Court concluded that the matter required further consideration and directed the appellate authority to take into account the specific grounds raised by the appellant during the statutory appeal. The appellate authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized affording the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing in this process.

The court set a timeframe for the appellate authority to conclude the proceedings, instructing them to issue a decision within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Conclusion

In light of the specific grounds raised by the appellant and the failure of the learned Judge to address these issues, the Madras High Court, in its wisdom, directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that assessments are conducted within the confines of the law and highlights the court’s commitment to addressing jurisdictional issues and upholding principles of natural justice.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Challenging the common order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.9142 and 9145 of 2023, dismissing the writ petitions holding that there was no extraordinary circumstance to intervene with the assessment order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the assessing authority and it is for the writ petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal that was filed in January 2023, the present writ appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioner before this Court.

2. The above two writ petitions have been filed by the appellant herein against the assessment order and the demand notice. It was contended before the learned Judge on the side of the appellant that the order of assessment proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme and in view of the observation that the appellant was not entitled to long term capital loss, the order has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice thus violating Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned show cause notice has been issued in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act read with the rules, having regard to the fact that the impugned notice fails to provide for refund of the amount that the appellant is entitled to. The impugned assessment order as well as the show cause notice have been issued wholly without jurisdiction and hence, the same are liable to be set aside. It was also contended that the order passed by the authority ignores the well established position that once there is a notice proposing variation, a new variation cannot be sought to be made in the final order. The fact remained that the appellant has challenged the impugned order of assessment by way of statutory appeal in January 2023. Thus, holding that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India constitutes an extraordinary remedy, but in the present case, it has been resorted to only as an afterthought and that, no extraordinary circumstances are available, the learned Judge rejected the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein. Challenging the common order passed by the learned Judge, the appellant has preferred these present appeals.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge, by holding that the appellant was entitled to pursue the statutory remedy, has failed to take into consideration the ground raised by them that the assessment order was passed in violation of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act. The learned Judge also failed to take note of the fact that the assessment order traversed beyond the proposed variations under the show cause notice and hence, the same was passed wholly without jurisdiction. With regard to extraordinary circumstance, the learned senior counsel submitted that when there is violation of the principles of natural justice and the order being passed without jurisdiction, the same constitutes an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it has been stressed by the learned senior counsel that since the assessment order has travelled beyond the proposed variations under the show cause notice and has violated principles of natural justice, which is impermissible in law, there is no efficacious remedy other than filing a writ petition before the writ Court. However, the learned Judge instead of entertaining the same, dismissed the writ petitions by the order impugned herein, which will have to be set aside.

4. The learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department has submitted that the impugned order of the learned Judge does not require any interference by this Court since it has been passed, after a thorough analysis of the materials in accordance with law.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously.

6. The specific grounds raised in these writ appeals on the side of the appellant are that the order of assessment proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme and in view of the observation that the appellant was not entitled to long term capital loss, the order has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice, thereby violating Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; that the impugned show cause notice has been issued in direct contravention of the provisions of the Act read with the rules; that the order passed by the authority ignores the well established position that once there is a notice proposing variation, a new variation cannot be sought to be made in the final order; and that the learned Judge did not address any of these aspects and also the case laws and oral submissions made on the side of the appellant, at the time of hearing the writ petitions.

7. On a perusal of the order impugned herein, it could be seen that the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, held that the matter may be pursued in the statutory appeal which was filed by the appellant before the appellate authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the appellate authority to take into account the above specific grounds raised by the appellant while considering the appellant’s appeal, which was filed on 27.01.2023 in acknowledgement No.936232740270123 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8. Accordingly, both these writ appeals stand disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930