TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenges to Income Tax Assessment Order Dismissed due to Limitation Period</h1> <h3>Rajasingh Thangadurai Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> The court dismissed the challenges to the Assessment Order and penalties imposed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to being filed beyond the statutory ... Validity of Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B - statutory period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited case [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] a writ petition beyond the statutory period of limitation is liable to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions where orders are challenged beyond the statutory period of limitation for filing appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thus the impugned Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is liable to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:The judgment involves challenges to an Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and penalties imposed under Section 270A and Section 271AAD(1)(i) of the same Act.Challenges to Assessment Order:The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 21.12.2022 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in W.P.No.22293 of 2023. The court noted that the challenge cannot be entertained due to being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case.Legal Principles on Alternative Remedies:The judgment highlighted the legal principle that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions if an effective alternative remedy is available, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction should be exercised with self-imposed limitations and discretion, especially when alternative remedies are provided by statute.Imposition of Penalties:Regarding the penalties imposed under Section 270A and Section 271AAD(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in W.P.Nos.22299 and 22302 of 2023, the court found that the petitioner has an alternate remedy through an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It stated that the impugned orders were not without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles.Dismissal and Liberty to Appeal:The court dismissed W.P.No.22293 of 2023 and W.P.Nos.22299 and 22302 of 2023, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within thirty days. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
