2024 (3) TMI 213 - HC - Income Tax

Madras HC directs review of assessment order challenges under Income Tax Act for jurisdiction and process violations.

Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited (Merged with Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Private Limited) Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder Ritesh Dedhia Versus The Income Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 3 (1), Chennai

Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited (Merged with Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Private Limited) Rep. by its Power of ... Issues involved:The judgment involves challenging a common order dismissing writ petitions regarding an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the grounds of violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction, with a focus on extraordinary circumstances for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Issue 1: Violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction:The appellant contended that the assessment order proposed variation under the faceless assessment scheme, going beyond the scope of the show cause notice and violating Section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was argued that the impugned notice failed to provide for the refund the appellant was entitled to, and both the assessment order and show cause notice were issued without jurisdiction. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds that a new variation cannot be made once a notice proposing variation is issued. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the statutory appeal filed by the appellant should be pursued, but the appellant stressed that the violation of Section 144B and lack of jurisdiction constituted extraordinary circumstances necessitating intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Issue 2: Failure to address grounds raised by the appellant:The appellant raised specific grounds in the writ appeals, highlighting the violation of Section 144B(1)(xii), issuance of the show cause notice against the provisions of the Act, and the authority's failure to follow established practices regarding variations in the final order. The appellant argued that the learned Judge did not consider these aspects, along with relevant case laws and oral submissions during the hearing of the writ petitions. The appellant emphasized that the assessment order exceeding the proposed variations and violating natural justice required a writ petition as an efficacious remedy, which was dismissed by the learned Judge.Judgment Summary:The High Court of Madras, in a common judgment, addressed the challenges to a common order dismissing writ petitions related to an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised concerns regarding the violation of Section 144B(1)(xii) and lack of jurisdiction, contending that the assessment order went beyond the proposed variations and failed to consider the appellant's entitlement to a refund. The Court noted that the learned Judge had dismissed the writ petitions, suggesting the pursuit of statutory appeal, but the appellant argued for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to extraordinary circumstances. After careful consideration, the Court directed the appellate authority to review the specific grounds raised by the appellant and make a decision within twelve weeks, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issues raised in the appeal. Consequently, the writ appeals were disposed of without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.