2021 (8) TMI 1102 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses writ petition citing no violation of natural justice, jurisdictional error,

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that there was no violation of natural justice principles, no jurisdictional error by the assessing officer, ... Assessment u/s 144B - violation of principle of natural justice - respondent concerned not giving adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - whether assessing officer has committed jurisdictional error and that the alternative remedy is no bar in entertaining this Writ Petition since violation of natural justice is a jurisdictional error? - HELD THAT:- It is established from record that series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the petitioner from time to time and the petitioner did not comply with many notices and sometime in response to some of the notices on some occasion replied to the show-cause notice in detail and furnished material evidence and documents in support of its case before the Assessing Officer in course of impugned assessment proceeding. In my considered opinion petitioner could not make out a case of any patent jurisdictional error or that the assessing officer acted contrary to any specific provision of law in course of the impugned assessment proceeding. In view of the discussion made above and after taking into the consideration records available/annexed to the Writ Petition, in my considered opinion, sufficient opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice in course of impugned assessment proceeding and in passing the assessment order and in the instant case it cannot be said that the assessing officer/respondent concerned who passed the assessment order was having inherent lack of jurisdiction or his action in course of impugned assessment proceeding was contrary to any specific provision of law and the impugned assessment order is not liable to be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Issues Involved:1. Violation of principles of natural justice.2. Jurisdictional error by the assessing officer.3. Adequacy of opportunities provided for hearing.4. Alternative remedy and its impact on the writ petition.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 4th June 2021 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, alleging that the respondent did not provide adequate and effective opportunity of hearing. However, the court observed that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity of hearing throughout the assessment proceedings. The records showed multiple notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to the petitioner, providing various opportunities to furnish relevant documents and respond to show-cause notices. The petitioner’s claim of not being heard was refuted by the detailed records of adjournments and responses filed by the petitioner. The court concluded that there was no violation of principles of natural justice.2. Jurisdictional Error by the Assessing Officer:The petitioner argued that the assessing officer committed a jurisdictional error, which warranted the court’s intervention despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The court held that the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code with specific statutory appellate forums for redressal of grievances against assessment orders. It emphasized that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the findings of the assessing officer based on material facts and evidence. The court found no jurisdictional error or action contrary to any specific provision of law by the assessing officer.3. Adequacy of Opportunities Provided for Hearing:The court meticulously examined the sequence of notices and adjournments granted to the petitioner. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on several occasions, and the petitioner was given multiple chances to comply and furnish documents. The petitioner also filed detailed replies and documents in response to the show-cause notices. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunities to present its case and that the assessment order was passed after considering the material evidence and documents submitted by the petitioner. The court concluded that sufficient opportunities of hearing were provided, and there was no breach of natural justice.4. Alternative Remedy and Its Impact on the Writ Petition:The court reiterated that the petitioner has specific statutory appellate forums under the Income Tax Act for challenging the assessment order. It emphasized that the High Court should not substitute the findings of the assessing officer with its own in writ jurisdiction when an adequate alternative remedy is available. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner could not establish any patent jurisdictional error or violation of specific legal provisions by the assessing officer.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, no jurisdictional error by the assessing officer, and sufficient opportunities for hearing were provided. The court held that the petitioner should seek redressal through the statutory appellate forums available under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner’s request for a stay of the judgment was also refused.