Dismissal of Writ Petition Against Income Tax Assessment Order Emphasizes Appeal Procedures

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an assessment order under the Income Tax Act for lack of opportunity, failure to follow Section 144(B) procedure, and penalty imposition. The petitioner's claim of not receiving prior notice was refuted with evidence, emphasizing the importance of real-time alerts. The Court advised seeking remedy through the appeal process under Section 246(A) and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for resolution within four weeks. The dismissal was based on the availability of alternative remedies, highlighting the need to follow proper appeal procedures rather than invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenge to an assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21, alleging lack of opportunity to present case, failure to follow procedure under Section 144(B), and imposition of penalty under Section 270(A).

Summary of Judgment:

Challenge to Assessment Order:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged an assessment order dated 21.09.2022, alleging lack of opportunity to present their case. The petitioner had filed its return of income and responded to notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. However, the petitioner claimed they were not given a chance to explain certain discrepancies in the assessment order, particularly regarding alleged sundry creditors. The petitioner sought to quash the order primarily on grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to provide documentary evidence.

Procedure under Section 144(B):
The petitioner contended that the procedure under Section 144(B) had not been followed, as they were not given a real-time alert as required. The petitioner argued that they were not informed about subsequent notices and were unaware of the impugned assessment order until a penalty notice was issued. The petitioner emphasized the importance of being provided with a real-time alert as per the statutory requirements.

Court's Decision:
Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner's claim of not being served with prior notice appeared incorrect based on proof of mail communications submitted by the respondent. The Court also acknowledged the importance of real-time alerts under Section 144(B) for effective communication during assessment proceedings. However, the Court pointed out that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act.

Dismissal of Writ Petition:
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for redressal. The appellate authority was instructed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of filing. The Court emphasized that the detailed assessment order could be challenged through the appropriate appeal process rather than invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---