The petitioner challenged an Income Tax assessment order via a writ petition under Article 226. The Court held that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy requires the petitioner to file an appeal instead of seeking a writ.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.6598 and 6600 of 2022
Abdul Rahman Marakayar .. Petitioner Vs
1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.
2.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Asssitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer,
National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records Assessment order DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1) dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the respondents herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gunaseelanmuthiah For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash the Assessment order in DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1) dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the respondents.
2.The petitioner is an assessee, who has challenged the assessment order passed by the second respondent in DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021-22/1042111051 (1), dated 30.03.2022.
3.The contention of the petitioner is that the assessment has been made for the year 2013-14 and he had wrongly submitted the assessment year as 2012-13. Since the assessment is bad in law, he prayed for setting aside the assessment order.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Income Tax submitted that the assessment order is for the year 2013-14. Initially, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022, 20.02.2022 and 26.02.2022. The petitioner purchased the immovable property on 04.06.2012 and thereafter, the property sold on 06.09.2012. The petitioner had suppressed the income of Rs.1,19,17,620. The Assessment Officer, on considering the materials, found that the petitioner had purposely not responded to the notice and participated in the proceedings. Thereafter, the second respondent, following the best judgment assessment procedure, had passed the assessment order. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file an appeal.
5.In view of the same, this takes me to the alternate remedy plea. The alternate remedy rule no doubt is not an absolute rule. In other words, the alternate remedy rule is a rule of discretion. It is not only a rule of discretion, it is a self restraint qua writ jurisdiction. In the light of this obtaining legal position, Hon'ble Supreme Court in a long line of judgments ie., Dunlop India
case [Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal Vs. Dunlop India Ltd., and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260], Satyawati Tandon [United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] and K.C.Mathew [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85] has repeatedly held that when it comes to Revenue matters [ie., fiscal Statutes] alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost rigour. These three case laws mentioned here do not make a exhaustive list, they are only illustrative and what I have mentioned are oft quoted judgments for the proposition that alternate remedy rule has to be applied with utmost rigour in fiscal Statutes.
6.In other words, the campaign of the writ petitioner qua the impugned orders in the writ petition fail and the writ petition is dismissed albeit making it clear that if the writ petitioner chooses the alternate remedy route and files statutory appeals, the same will be considered (subject of course to limitation and pre-deposit condition) by the appellate authority on its own merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Vsg
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022
To
1.The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.
2.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Asssitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.
+1 CC to M/s.N.DILIPKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-24675[F] dated 08/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.J.GUNASEELANMUTHAIAH, Advocate ( SR-24703[F] dated 09/06/2022 )
W.P.(MD)No.9237 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.6598 and 6600 of 2022 07.06.2022
RK(08/06/2022) 3P 5C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to quash an income tax assessment order when an appeal lies as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati TondonReferred¶18
(2010) 8 SCC 110 · Who else cites this
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C.Referred¶18
(2018) 3 SCC 85 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Rahman Marakayar
The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
The Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Asssitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
