Case Law Details
GK Sports Vs National Faceless Assessment Center (Calcutta High Court)
The Court dismissed the writ petition arguing that the impugned assessment order under Section 147 of the Act was, in fact, an appealable order, and had been passed providing extensive reasons. The Court clarified that a differentiation must be made between sufficiency of reason and absence of reason. It observed that the Assessing Officer had appropriately addressed and discussed the petitioner’s objections, providing enough reasons and findings for their conclusion. The court further ruled that the sufficiency of reasons given by the Assessing Officer couldn’t be scrutinized under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it isn’t the function of a writ court to act like an appellate authority.
The Court’s ruling reiterates the principle of the judiciary respecting the decisions of administrative authorities, especially when they provide detailed reasoning. Furthermore, the judgment highlights the importance of alternative legal remedies available to the petitioner, thus maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the legal system.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-2019 on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and also on the ground of non-consideration of its reply to the show-cause notice and relevant material as indicated by the assessee petitioner in the said reply in a proper manner.
I have considered the submission of Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and the documents he has placed and have perused the impugned assessment order and considering the same I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the reason that the impugned assessment order under Section 147 of the Act is an appellable order and that the assessment order has been passed by giving elaborate reasons. There is a difference between sufficiency of reason and no reason at all.
It is not a case as appears from the impugned order that the Assessing Officer has not at all referred or discussed the objection of the petitioner against the draft assessment order in question. The Assessing Officer has given its reasons and findings for coming to its conclusion, sufficiency of it and the reasons and findings cannot be appreciated and scrutinized by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India like an appellate authority.
Furthermore, I have considered the impugned order which is neither in violation of principle of natural justice by denying the petitioner any opportunity of hearing nor patently the impugned order is contrary to any specific provision of law nor the impugned order is without jurisdiction nor there is any procedural irregularity in course of the impugned proceeding.
Without going into the merit of the impugned assessment order, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition being WPA 9206 of 2023 and accordingly the same is dismissed.
However, if the petitioner files the appeal within a period of two weeks from date before the statutory appellate authority concerned, the point of limitation will not be raised by the appellate authority and the appeal will be disposed expeditiously.
