Laxminarayan Patidar Vs ITO (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Laxminarayan Patidar challenging an order under Section 148A(d) and a subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the reopening of assessment for AY 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the order and notice were arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice, as no proper opportunity for a hearing was given. Additionally, it was contended that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the petitioner’s response before passing the order. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, to argue that the impugned notice was issued without proper legal compliance. However, the respondent countered that the assessment was at a preliminary stage and that the petitioner had alternative statutory remedies, making the writ petition premature.
The court outlined the procedural requirements under Section 148A, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had followed due process before issuing the notice. The insertion of Section 148A in the Income Tax Act aimed to ensure a fair inquiry process before reopening assessments. The court cited precedents, stating that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at an early stage when statutory remedies are available. The court held that examining the validity of the Assessing Officer’s opinion regarding income escaping assessment falls outside the scope of Article 226 jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed at the admission stage, with liberty for the petitioner to pursue remedies under the Income Tax Act.
