Case Law Details
Junaitha Begum Vs Assessing Officer of the Assessment Unit (Madras High Court)
In this case, Junaitha Begum has challenged the Assessment Order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r/w 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has taxed the total income of the petitioner to a taxable income of Rs. 60,08,010/-.
The petitioner’s main contention is that the amount in question had been received much earlier and was already accounted for in the returns filed for the previous assessment year, but the same was not considered in the impugned Assessment Order. The petitioner had also raised objections regarding the assessment proceeding, which was earlier closed in view of an older proceeding that became redundant due to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The petitioner further argues that the assessment was completed prematurely and without adequate time, violating principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner’s request for an adjournment and erroneously stated that the petitioner did not furnish any response. The petitioner claims that the impugned order is liable to be set aside based on a decision of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathy Chita v. ITO (2022) 143 taxmann.com 329 (Mad).
The court, however, finds no merit in the petitioner’s contentions. It holds that the petitioner’s explanation provided during the assessment was found inadequate, which led the Assessing Officer to pass the impugned order under Section 147 r/w 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court notes that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 52,85,000/- during the demonetization period and was asked to explain the source of this deposit. However, the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the deposit, which resulted in the impugned order.
Based on these considerations, the court concludes that there is no justification for challenging the impugned order through a writ petition. The petitioner is directed to avail the alternate remedy available before the Appellate Commissioner and file a statutory appeal against the impugned order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the court’s order. The Appellate Commissioner will then consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders on the merits, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.
As a result, the writ petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. No costs are awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 09.05.2023 passed under Section 147 r/w 144(B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. By the impugned order, the total income of the petitioner has been taxed to a taxable income of Rs.60,08,010/-. The specific case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has explained regarding the variation and fact that the amount was received much earlier and was accounted in the returns filed by the petitioner for previous assessment year and the same has not been considered in the impugned Assessment Order dated 09.05.2023 passed under Section 147 r/w 144(B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. It is submitted that the proceeding initiated in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/148/2021-22/1033935368(1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was closed in DIN & Letter No.ITBA/AST/S/63/2022-23/1048810205(1) dated 17.01.2023 in view of older proceeding which has been now rendered redundant being covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. It is further submitted that without giving adequate time, the assessment was completed in an pre-emptive manner and has thus resulted in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the impugned order, rejected the petitioner’s request for adjournment and has erroneously stated that “ the assessee did not furnish any response in this regard‘. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in terms of the decision of this Court in Parthasarathy Chita v. ITO (2022) 143 taxmann.com 329 (Mad).
5. It is further submitted that the first respondent while passing the impugned order has brought to tax two items of additions without considering the petitioner’s response, creating undue hardship and irreparable loss to the writ petitioner/Assessee by raising a wrong, unsustainable artificial demand, forcing the writ petitioner/Assessee to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate interference by this Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the impugned order. The attempt of the petitioner to contrive the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has given his explanation which was found in adequate. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order under Section 147 r/w 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. A reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.52,85,000/- in the wake of demonetization. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation. The petitioner has however not properly explained the facts surrounding deposit of the aforesaid sum of Rs.52,85,000/-. Hence, the impugned order was passed by the respondent.
8. Therefore, there is no merits to challenge the impugned order in the writ petition. As such this writ petition cannot be entertained, as the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner.
9. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within such time, the Appellate Commissioner shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. Needless to state the petitioner shall be heard before the order is passed in the proposed appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
