Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy: disputed tax facts and prior hearing prevented interference with assessment proceedings.

Writ interference was declined where the assessment dispute under the Income-tax Act turned on contested facts, including whether bank deposits benefited the appellant and whether the amounts belonged to the deceased assessee. The Court held that such issues required factual adjudication and should be pursued through the available statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Alleged violation of natural justice also failed because a show-cause notice had been issued and an opportunity of hearing was given before assessment. The challenge to proceeding against the appellant as legal representative likewise involved factual matters not suited to writ review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the assessment order and consequential notices under writ jurisdiction was maintainable when the dispute turned on disputed questions of fact and the statutory appellate remedy was available; (ii) Whether the assessment and consequential proceedings were liable to be interfered with for alleged violation of natural justice and for treating the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the assessment order and consequential notices under writ jurisdiction was maintainable when the dispute turned on disputed questions of fact and the statutory appellate remedy was available.

Analysis: The assessment arose from proceedings under sections 144 and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the controversy depended upon whether the appellant had derived benefit through the deceased assessee's bank accounts and whether the amounts assessed belonged to the deceased or to some other person. Such questions required factual adjudication and were not fit for determination in writ proceedings. The Court also noted that a statutory quantum appeal was available before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not fit for interference on the merits in writ jurisdiction and the appellant was to pursue the alternate statutory remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and consequential proceedings were liable to be interfered with for alleged violation of natural justice and for treating the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased assessee.

Analysis: The appellant had been issued a show-cause notice and afforded an opportunity before the assessment order was passed. On that basis, the Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessment further treated the cash deposits as unexplained investment under section 69 and taxed them under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the appellant's objection to being proceeded against as legal heir/legal representative involved factual matters not amenable to writ review.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference on natural justice or legal-representative objections.

Final Conclusion: The intra-court appeal did not succeed on merits, but the appellant was given time to file the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the proceedings were closed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute rests on contested facts and an effective statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised, and compliance with a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing negatives a plea of violation of natural justice.

---