TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Subsequently, respondent No.1- the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 8.3.2010. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed computation of income under protest vide letter dated 15.4.2010 and requested respondent No.1 to furnish reasons recorded prior to the issue of notice under Section 148. 5. The respondent No.1, vide letter dated 6.10.2010, furnished the reasons to believe to the petitioner. The reasons recorded are as under: "The provision for gratuity amounting to Rs.16,59,906/- claimed in the profit and loss account and offered it for tax while computing the income under normal provision of the act. But while computing the income under special provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the act. But while computing the income under special provisions of the IT Act, it was not added back. The mistake has resulted in underassessment of income by Rs.2,62,30,297 with consequent short levy of tax by Rs.27,31,802 including interest u/s 234B." 6. The petitioner thereafter filed objections vide letter dated 26.10.2010, as stipulated and mandated by the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). In the objections, which go into about 70 typed pages, the petitioner relied upon case law, referred to the factual aspects and submitted that the issues/questions raised were examined by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed your objection citing various case laws against re-opening of the case. In this regard, it is stated that the objections/submissions filed have been duly considered but not found acceptable as the AO has categorically recorded the reasons in writing by proper application of mind based on information and material available on record. At the time of recording the reasons, the term "Reason to Believe" is clearly kept in mind. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot merely be a pretends. The reasons recorded are reasonable/genuine or in other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material/information available in the case of the assessee. Hence, the objection raised is not acceptable and therefore rejected." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmitted to challenge and question the reassessment order purportedly dated 19.11.2010 passed by the respondent no.1. 11. We may note the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and why we have permitted the petitioner to challenge the reassessment order dated 19.11.2010 in this writ petition. These are: a. The order disposing of objections in terms of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) was passed on 2.11.2010. The said order is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. b. The petitioner had filed this writ petition on 24.11.2010 challenging the order dated 2.11.2010. Advance copy of the writ petition was served on the Revenue. c. In GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court as under : "We see no justifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the Revenue has not disputed and denied that after order dated 2.11.2010 was passed, no further hearing was fixed and held by the Assessing Officer. Thus, after the order dated 2.11.2010, the Assessing Officer did not proceed with the assessment proceedings and no date was fixed and no hearing was granted to the petitioner. e. The limitation for passing of the assessment order was to expire on 31.12.2010. Thus, the Assessing Officer had sufficient time to complete the assessment, even after the order dated 2.11.2010. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer has proceeded in great rush and hurry. f. The respondents in the counter affidavit have not stated the date on which the re-assessment order dated 19.11.2010 was posted/served....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be regarded as equally efficacious and adequate. The petitioner has not tried to circumvent the statutory right to appeal or alternative remedy. Challenge to reopening of assessments has been entertained and examined in writ proceedings when existence of jurisdictional precondition is in issue/question. Existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to relief under Article 226 but essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. When there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the procedure required for the decision is not adopted, the writ court can exercise their discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review. In the present case, we are satisfied that there has been miscarriage of justice and the resp....