Court upholds Commissioner's decision on tax assessment, denies writ petition challenge

The Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I to refuse interference with the Assessing Officer's assessment order. The petitioner's attempt to challenge the order through a writ petition was dismissed as impermissible, as the statutory appeal process had not been exhausted. The Court found the Commissioner's decision in compliance with the law, noting that the revisional power under Section 264 aims to grant relief without prejudice to the assessee. The writ petition was declined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with no costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, appeal to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, refusal to interfere with assessment order, alternative remedy of filing an appeal.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 24.03.2006, claiming it did not align with the factual aspects of their claim. An appeal was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, Madurai, who partially allowed it on 21.05.2007. Subsequently, the respondent Department appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, resulting in a remand to the Assessing Authority. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle II, Madurai, then disallowed a sum of Rs.29,10,000 received for the sale of agricultural land due to lack of supporting documentary evidence. This amount was treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-2004.

The petitioner, instead of appealing to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), opted for a revision under Section 264(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, after thorough consideration of the case and previous orders, refused to interfere with the Assessing Officer's decision dated 16.12.2010. The Court noted that the revisional power under Section 264 is to grant relief without prejudicing the assessee. As the authority did not modify the assessment order to the petitioner's detriment, the Court found the order compliant with the law.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner bypassed the statutory appeal process by filing a writ petition challenging the Section 264 order, which was deemed impermissible due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the statute. Consequently, the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declined to entertain the writ petition, stating that the order was not prejudicial to the petitioner as the revisional authority merely upheld the Assessing Authority's decision. The dismissal of the writ petition was based on the lack of merit, with no costs imposed.

---