Assessment order upheld under Section 143(3); petitioner directed to seek remedy by appeal under Section 246A

HC dismissed the writ petition, holding the assessment order maintainable under Section 143(3). The court found the assessing authority considered the petitioner's defenses, compared ledgers with another dealer and noted discrepancies with entries in the customized J PACK software; the order was not non-speaking. The petitioner had participated in the inquiry and sought cross-examination but the authority addressed submissions. Relying on SC precedent, the HC directed the petitioner to pursue the effective alternate remedy of appeal under section 246A, as the appellate forum can adequately test the contentions.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to order passed by respondent, violation of principles of natural justice, availability of alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act.

Challenge to Order Passed by Respondent:
The petitioner, a jewelry business partnership firm, challenged the order passed by the respondent based on a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, revealing incriminating materials related to the petitioner. The respondent centralized the case and initiated proceedings without providing the petitioner with an opportunity to rebut the allegations, leading to the writ petition.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the order was based on third party documents without allowing them to cross-examine the third parties. They argued that the proceedings were initiated without affording them a chance to rebut the presumption, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, citing judgments supporting their position.

Availability of Alternate Remedy under Section 246A:
The respondent argued that the impugned order provided opportunities for the petitioner to submit objections and scrutinize the software used as evidence. They emphasized the availability of an alternate remedy through an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, stating that the High Court cannot directly intervene without exhausting statutory remedies. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their position.

Decision:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to utilize the alternate remedy available through the appellate authority. The court noted that the impugned order considered the petitioner's defenses and interactions, indicating a fair process. The judgment highlighted the importance of following statutory procedures before seeking relief from the High Court, with the option for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for further redress.

---