1998 (2) TMI 114 - HC - Income Tax

Petition challenging income tax orders dismissed, alternative appeal available. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction not warranted.

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging income tax assessment orders, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal to the ... Business Income, Business Receipt, High Court, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Question Of Law Issues:1. Challenge to income tax assessment order dated March 29, 1995, and subsequent order dated February 21, 1997.2. Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the assessment proceedings.4. Whether the order of remand by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified.5. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by the High Court.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to challenge an income tax assessment order dated March 29, 1995, and a subsequent order dated February 21, 1997. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had set aside the initial assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment. The petitioner contended that the assessment order was framed in violation of natural justice principles.2. A preliminary objection was raised on the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argued that a writ of certiorari should be issued as the assessment order was allegedly in violation of natural justice principles. The court considered various legal precedents cited by both parties.3. The petitioner claimed that the Assessing Officer repeated a mistake and violated the directions given in the order of remand, indicating indiscipline and judicial impropriety. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have annulled the assessment proceedings instead of directing a remand, citing the violation of natural justice principles.4. The respondent contended that the order of remand was justified and that annulment of the assessment is only warranted in specific cases, such as when the assessment is void ab initio. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument, emphasizing the limited circumstances where annulment of assessment is appropriate.5. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court held that the case did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, considering the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy and granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal, allowing for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under relevant provisions of the Limitation Act.