Writ relief and reassessment notice validity turn on inconsistent assessee stands and capacity can be determined in assessment

Discretionary relief under article 226 was refused because the assessee had taken inconsistent stands on whether the income belonged to him individually or to a Hindu undivided family, pursued the statutory appellate remedy, and then sought writ relief after adverse findings and unexplained delay. The reassessment was also upheld because the reopening notice was issued to the same person and the assessee's status as individual or Hindu undivided family could be determined in the assessment proceedings; the notice was not invalid merely for failing to specify the capacity in which he was proceeded against. The writ challenge therefore failed and the reassessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution in view of the conduct of the assessee and the availability and pursuit of the statutory appellate remedy. (ii) Whether the reassessment made on the Hindu undivided family was without jurisdiction because the reopening notice had been addressed to Mahabir Prasad Poddar without specifying the capacity in which he was proceeded against.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution in view of the conduct of the assessee and the availability and pursuit of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The income had escaped assessment and the assessee had first represented the income as his individual income and later as income of a Hindu undivided family. The assessee invoked the statutory appellate process and, after an adverse appellate order, moved the writ petition after delay without explanation. A person who invites the assessment on one footing and later takes a contradictory stand is not entitled to invoke discretionary writ relief to nullify the order so obtained at his instance, especially where an alternative remedy was available and pursued.

Conclusion: Relief under article 226 was rightly refused and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment made on the Hindu undivided family was without jurisdiction because the reopening notice had been addressed to Mahabir Prasad Poddar without specifying the capacity in which he was proceeded against.

Analysis: The notices under the Act were issued to Mahabir Prasad Poddar, the same person who filed returns first as an individual and later for the Hindu undivided family. The status of the assessee could be determined in the assessment proceedings, and the facts were distinguishable from cases where the notice was issued to the wrong legal entity in a setting involving two distinct existing assessees. On the facts, the notice was not vitiated merely because it did not specify the capacity, and the reassessment was not shown to be without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not without jurisdiction and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed because discretionary relief was barred by the assessee's conduct and the reassessment proceedings were held to be legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same person is proceeded against and his status as individual or Hindu undivided family can be determined in assessment proceedings, a reopening notice is not invalid merely because it does not specify the capacity; discretionary writ relief may also be declined where the assessee has taken inconsistent stands and pursued the statutory remedy.

---