TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee Must Reply to Section 153C Notices Before Filing Writ Petition, Exhaust Statutory Remedies First</h1> The SC held that the assessee, upon receipt of notices under Section 153C, should have filed a reply instead of directly approaching the HC via a writ ... Validity of notice issued u/s 153C - Reply to notice not filed, instead writ challenging notice filed - High Court dismissed notice - Held that:- In the instant case, it transpires from the record that the jurisdictional Assessing Authority, upon having a reason to believe that the documents seized indicate escapement of income, has issued Show Cause Notices under Section 153C to the assessee for reassessment of his income during the assessment years 2001-2002 to 2006-2007. Thereafter, upon request of the assessee, the Assessing Authority has furnished him with the copies of documents seized under Section 132A. The assessee being dissatisfied with the said documents instead of filing his explanation/reply to the Show Cause Notices, has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court impugning the said notices. At the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the Assessing Authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the Writ Petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court - High Court ought not have entertained the Writ Petition and instead should have directed the assessee to file reply to the said notices and upon receipt of a decision from the Assessing Authority, if for any reason it is aggrieved by the said decision, to question the same before the forum provided under the Act - Matter remitted back for filing of replies and procedure thereof - Following decision of Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. v. CCT [2009 (8) TMI 688 - SUPREME COURT] and Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO [2001 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of Revenue. ISSUES: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a Writ Petition challenging Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies.Whether the condition precedent for issuance of notices under Section 153C is fulfilled when seized documents under Section 132A do not belong to the assessee.Whether the Assessing Authority was justified in issuing Show Cause Notices under Section 153C based on seized documents related to a co-operative society and developer company.Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires judicial determination at this stage. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: On the issue of jurisdiction and remedy, the Court held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition at the initial stage as the assessee had an alternate statutory remedy and should have filed a reply to the Show Cause Notices under Section 153C; it is a settled principle that 'when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court.'Regarding the condition precedent for issuance of notices under Section 153C, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the correctness of the High Court's conclusion that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee, thereby not fulfilling the condition precedent.The Court set aside the High Court's judgment quashing the Show Cause Notices and directed the assessee to file reply/objections within a stipulated time, after which the Assessing Authority shall consider the reply and proceed accordingly.The Court observed that while framing the assessment order, the Assessing Authority shall not be influenced by the High Court's observations made during the Writ Petition disposal, and the assessee must exhaust remedies under the Act if aggrieved by the assessment order.On appeals arising from factual determinations by the First Appellate Authority, Tribunal, and High Court regarding assessments and tax liability, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting its intervention. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, as established in precedents such as Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. v. CCT and Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. v. ITO.The statutory framework under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Sections 132, 132A, 153A, 153B, and 153C, governs the procedure for search, seizure, and reassessment; the Court emphasized adherence to these procedural safeguards.The Court refrained from adjudicating on the substantive interpretation of Section 153C at this stage, leaving the question open for determination in an appropriate proceeding.The decision reflects a doctrinal adherence to procedural propriety and judicial restraint in interference with assessment proceedings at the notice stage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
