Court upholds timely notice under Income Tax Act, directs petitioner to appeal, emphasizes statutory remedies

The Court found the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be within the prescribed period, rejecting the petitioner's claim of being time-barred. Emphasizing the importance of availing statutory appellate remedies, the Court directed the petitioner to appeal before the CIT Appeals within 30 days. The Court highlighted the need to exhaust alternative remedies before resorting to extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, disposing of the writ petition with directions for the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy within the specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues involved:
The legality of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year 2012-13 and the subsequent assessment order.

Summary:

Issue 1: Time limitation of the notice and assessment order

The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it was time-barred as it exceeded the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner argued that the income for the relevant assessment year had been disclosed in the previous year's tax return, and thus, no income had escaped assessment. The respondents contended that the notice was within the six-year limitation period as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

Issue 2: Availability of alternative remedy

The respondents argued that the petitioner should have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 246-A of the Act within 30 days, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised when alternative efficacious remedies are available.

Judgment:

The Court found merit in the respondent's submissions regarding the time limitation of the notice and assessment order, stating that the notice issued on 31-03-2019 was within the prescribed period. The Court emphasized the importance of availing statutory appellate remedies before resorting to extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to appeal before the CIT Appeals within 30 days without insisting on the question of limitation. The interim protection granted earlier was to remain in force during this period. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy within the specified timeframe, highlighting the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

---