The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0409 (AP-HC) : (2020) 428 ITR 0062

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Article 226

Admittedly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 and assessee was granted 30 days time for filing its return. If assessee was oversure that it was not a case of intentional escape of taxable income on non-disclosure, assessee would have satisfied assessing authority by way of filing its return in compliance with impugned notice but, except filing return, assessee had taken all other course such as filing of objection and invoking writ jurisdiction. Also, assessee's case could not be termed as an exceptional case for interference at initial stage of reopening of assessment and, therefore, no interference was called for while exercising power under article 226 of Constitution of India when there were statutory remedies available to assessee.

Writ - Maintainability - Altenative statutory remedy available to assessee at initial stage of issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 -

Assessee by way of writ petition challenged notice issued by AO under section 148 beyond four years on the ground that there was no failure on the part of assessee to make a return or to disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Held: Admittedly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 and assessee was granted 30 days time for filing its return. If assessee was oversure that it was not a case of intentional escape of taxable income on non-disclosure, assessee would have satisfied assessing authority by way of filing its return in compliance with impugned notice but, except filing return, assessee had taken all other course such as filing of objection and invoking writ jurisdiction. Also, assessee's case could not be termed as an exceptional case for interference at initial stage of reopening of assessment and, therefore, no interference was called for while exercising power under article 226 of Constitution of India when there were statutory remedies available to assessee.

Followed:Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. v. Mathew, K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 : 2018 TaxPub(CL) 142 (SC). Distinguished:Mahesh Kumar Gupta (2014) 363 ITR 300 (All) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1577 (All-HC), South Yarra Holdings v. ITO & Anr. (2019) 263 Taxman 594 (Bom) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2746 (Bom-HC) and Pr.CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1791 (Del-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2012-13



IN THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT