2003 (3) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Dismissal of Writ Petition for Procedural Failures

The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue the case, substantial delays in raising objections, and the ... Recording of reasons under section 151 - Sanction by higher authority under section 151(2) - Validity of notice under section 148 - Delay and laches in challenging statutory notice - Availability of alternate remedy and preclusion of writ jurisdiction - Duty to obtain statutory documents from authority-no court direction where not previously soughtRecording of reasons under section 151 - Sanction by higher authority under section 151(2) - Validity of notice under section 148 - Delay and laches in challenging statutory notice - Availability of alternate remedy and preclusion of writ jurisdiction - Petition challenging the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under section 148 on the ground of non-compliance with section 151 was not entertained on writ jurisdiction due to inordinate delay, laches and availability of alternate remedy. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that recording of reasons by the Assessing Officer and sanction by a higher authority under sub-section (2) of section 151 are material pre-conditions for issuance of a section 148 notice. However, the petitioner raised the preliminary objection only after about 22 months from issuance of the notice and first sought certified reasons much later, thereby exhibiting gross delay and lack of diligence. In these circumstances, and given the existence of an alternate remedy before the assessing authority, the writ forum was not appropriate to decide the validity of the notice. The petitioner's conduct in failing to seek the certified reasons or the sanction order earlier militated against entertaining the writ petition against a show cause notice issued in 2001 in proceedings taken up in 2003.Writ petition challenging the notice on grounds of non-compliance with section 151 dismissed for delay, laches and presence of alternate remedy; matter not entertained on merits by the Court.Duty to obtain statutory documents from authority-no court direction where not previously sought - Availability of alternate remedy and preclusion of writ jurisdiction - Petitioner's prayer for direction to supply the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner under section 151(2) was refused. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner did not earlier apply for or obtain the approval order and only came to know of its existence upon receiving the certified reasons. Since the petitioner had not sought the document from the authority during the relevant period and there remained an alternate statutory remedy to procure documents and press objections before the assessing authority, the Court declined to grant a direction for supply of the approval order. The Court observed there was no reason to believe the respondents would not supply documents as required under law and rules, and therefore no exercise of extraordinary writ relief was warranted for that limited prayer.No direction issued to respondents to supply the approval order; petitioner may obtain documents through the appropriate statutory procedure.Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the section 148 notice for alleged non-compliance with section 151 was dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay, laches and availability of alternate remedies; the Court also refused to direct production of the sanction order, leaving the petitioner to obtain documents and pursue remedies before the authority. Issues:1. Compliance with section 151 of the Income-tax Act for issuing notice under section 148.2. Delay in raising preliminary objections by the petitioner.3. Failure to diligently conduct the case before the appropriate authority.4. Request for direction to supply the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax.Compliance with Section 151 of the Income-tax Act:The petitioner argued that under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to record reasons and for the higher authority to sanction the notice under section 148. The petitioner contended that the notice issued on May 31, 2001, lacked jurisdiction as the approval by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was granted without considering the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner cited the judgment in Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 to support their argument. The court acknowledged the legal requirement of recording reasons and obtaining sanction before issuing a notice under section 148 but noted the petitioner's delay in raising objections after almost two years, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.Delay in Raising Preliminary Objections:The court highlighted the petitioner's delay in challenging the notice issued in 2001, as the preliminary objection was raised in 2003. The court considered this delay as a significant factor, indicating the petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing the case before the appropriate authority. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct of causing delays in the proceedings was sufficient grounds to dismiss the writ petition, especially when the petitioner only raised objections against a show cause notice after a considerable period.Failure to Diligently Conduct the Case:The court observed that the petitioner failed to diligently conduct the case before the competent authority, as evidenced by the delay in submitting the preliminary objection. The petitioner's failure to request the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax further demonstrated a lack of proactive engagement in the legal proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies to address their grievances before the relevant authority, emphasizing that the court should not entertain a writ petition against a show cause notice issued in 2001 when raised in 2003.Request for Direction to Supply Approval Order:The petitioner requested directions for the respondents to supply the approval order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. However, the court rejected this request, stating that since the petitioner did not make the request to the concerned authority, the court was not required to issue such a direction. The court emphasized that the petitioner could obtain necessary documents as per the rules and regulations, and there was no reason to doubt that the respondents would comply with their legal obligations to provide relevant documents.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's failure to diligently pursue the case, substantial delays in raising objections, and the availability of alternative remedies to address grievances before the appropriate authority. The court emphasized the importance of complying with legal procedures and engaging proactively in legal proceedings to seek redressal.