Court dismisses writ challenging Income Tax Act notices & orders, deems premature, directs exhausting statutory remedies.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to present its case during the assessment proceedings and that the writ petition was premature. Emphasizing the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court directed the petitioner to first avail statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Requirement of filing a return under Section 139(4C)(e) for Assessment Years prior to 2016-17.
4. Examination of exemption claims under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. Applicability of the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner-College challenged the notice dated 22.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) on the grounds that it was not required to file a return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 due to exemptions under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The notice was based on information suggesting that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The court observed that the Assessing Officer had information about cash deposits and interest income, which justified the issuance of the notice under Section 148A(b).

2. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner contended that the order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) lacked application of mind and was based on a preconceived approach. The court found that the Assessing Officer, after considering the petitioner's reply, had validly issued the notice under Section 148, as the petitioner had not filed the Income Tax Return (ITR) and had not satisfactorily explained the transactions in question.

3. Requirement of Filing a Return Under Section 139(4C)(e) for Assessment Years Prior to 2016-17:
The petitioner argued that there was no requirement to file a return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 because the provisions of Section 139(4C)(e) were effective from AY 2016-17. The court noted that the petitioner had filed a return under Section 139(4A) after receiving the notice under Section 148, indicating compliance with the notice. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had the opportunity to present its case during the assessment proceedings.

4. Examination of Exemption Claims Under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court examined whether the petitioner-College was "wholly or substantially financed by the Government" and "existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit" as required under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The court emphasized that these are matters of fact to be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer based on the evidence provided by the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary return initially, justifying the issuance of the notice for assessment of escaped income.

5. Applicability of the Principle of Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction but emphasized that it should be exercised sparingly. The court held that the petitioner should first exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act before seeking judicial intervention. The court cited several precedents to support this view and dismissed the writ petition as premature, directing the petitioner to present its case before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present its case during the assessment proceedings and that the writ petition was premature. The court emphasized the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---