2016 (2) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") by increasing the book profit by making an addition of amount of Rs. 253.87 crores as depreciation in the profit and loss account. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner company - Cairn India Limited is a resident company incorporated under the Erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 on 21.8.2006. It is listed on Bombay and National Stock Exchange of India. It is engaged in the business of surveying, prospecting, drilling and exploring, acquiring, developing, producing, maintaining, refining, storing, trading/supplying, transporting, marketing, distributing, importing, exporting and generally dealing in minerals, oi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amount of Rs. 2,69,22,99,920/- was adjusted to book profits under section 115JB of the Act. The petitioner is only challenging action of respondent No.1 in proposing to increase book profit by Rs. 253,87,76,138/- as a result of recomputation of book profit for the purpose of MAT under section 115JB of the Act Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections to the legality of the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel I, New Delhi (DRP) i.e. respondent No.2 on 20.3.2015. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.11.2015, Annexure P.1 under Section 144C(5) of the Act upheld the computation of book profit for the purpose of MAT made by the Assessing Officer under section 115JB of the Act in the draft assessment order. Hence the insta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... going through the narration of overall facts and the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, we find and it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders are appealable. Consequently, the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy of appeal against the orders passed by the authorities. 5. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained in a matter involving challenge to the order of the assessment passed by the competent authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and corresponding law enacted by the State legislature and answe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... .the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd. and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine." 6. Following the above judgment, the Apex Court i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y remedies:- i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 7. We are not inclined to entertain this petition against the assessment order as it does not fulfil any of the broad outlines noticed herein above.....". 8. Learned counsel had sought support from pronouncements in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.V.Hanumantha Rao (D) through Lrs and another, (2003) 10 SCC 121 and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited vs. Dy. Commissioner of income Tax, Circle 7(I) and others, (2014) 362 ITR 460 (Delhi) to countenance....