Writ petition challenging Section 153C assessment dismissed as alternate efficacious remedy available through appellate process

Delhi HC dismissed writ petition challenging assessment under Section 153C. Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised when alternate efficacious remedy exists, except in four specific circumstances: enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice principles, lack of jurisdiction, or constitutional challenge. Since assessee was given proper hearing opportunity and AO duly considered the reply, no violation of natural justice occurred. None of the exceptional circumstances warranting writ jurisdiction were established, therefore extraordinary powers under Article 226 could not be invoked.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Delay in initiating Section 153C proceedings.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of an alternate remedy.

Summary:

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner (assessee) contended that the order dated 22.04.2021 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding Rs. 1,62,20,000/- to her total income for AY 2014-15, violated the principles of natural justice. The assessee argued that she was not given ample opportunity to respond and that the satisfaction note was provided belatedly on 19.04.2021, with the assessment order being passed on 22.04.2021. However, the court found that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to respond, starting from 04.03.2021, and that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly considered her reply before passing the impugned order. The court emphasized that the satisfaction note, which included incriminating material, was provided to the assessee, and the AO had appropriately considered her objections.

Issue 2: Delay in Initiating Section 153C Proceedings
The assessee argued that there was an inordinate delay in initiating the Section 153C proceedings, as the search was conducted on 15.12.2016, and the notice was issued only on 22.12.2020. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Knitwears and other relevant cases, concluding that a delay of five months in issuing the notice was not unreasonable. The court highlighted that the proceedings were initiated within a reasonable period from the closure of the assessment of the searched person and that the delay was not fatal to the assessment.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The Revenue argued that the writ petition should not be entertained as the assessee had an alternate efficacious remedy available. The court referred to the principles laid down in various judicial pronouncements, including Radha Krishan Industries, which summarized the conditions under which writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite the availability of an alternate remedy. The court found that the present case did not meet any of these conditions, as the principles of natural justice were not violated, and the AO had duly applied his mind. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the assessee to pursue any other alternate remedy available to her under the law.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the assessee was given ample opportunity to respond, the delay in initiating Section 153C proceedings was not unreasonable, and the writ petition was not maintainable in the presence of an alternate remedy. The assessee was advised to pursue other remedies as per the law.

---