TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1038
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Act intimated to the petitioner that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It further called upon the petitioner to file a Return of Income in the prescribed form for the subject assessment year within 30 days of the service of the notice. The petitioner admittedly filed its Return of Income only on 29th December, 2015 for the subject assessment year and in terms of the order of the Apex Court in G.K.N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 259 ITR 19 sought reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned notice. 3. On 4th January, 2016, the Assessing Officer furnished to the petitioner reasons recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto, learned Counsel for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection that as the petitioner has participated in proceedings before the Assessing Officer in respect of the impugned notice, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 6. In the above view, without going into the merits of the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice and the manner in which the objections have been dealt with by the Assessing Officer, we called upon Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel to address us only on the issue of exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction in the present facts viz the petitioner having participated in the assessment proceedings and there being an efficacious alternative reme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enever we are of the view that interest of justice would require its exercise. We are clear that having of jurisdiction does not make it obligatory upon us to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction without reference to the facts before us. Therefore, where the petitioners have participated in the proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer and thereafter file a writ petition on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction, we normally will not entertain the petition. This is particularly so as an effective alternative remedy is available under the Act, to set aside the orders passed by the authority, which the petitioner claims is without jurisdiction. The provisions under Section 147 and 148 of the Act empowers the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticipated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The objections to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned notice during the assessment proceedings is to point out to him the reassessment proceedings are bad as the requirement of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act are not satisfied. It would be completely different scenario where the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and object to exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer at the very threshold and not while participating in the reassessment proceedings. In such cases, it is not a case of a party seeking identical relief by two parallel modes. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer are subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nes in exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The case laws relied upon are not applicable for reasons listed hereunder : (a) In P.R. Easwaran (supra), the High Court of Madras entertained the petition even though the petitioners had filed its Return of Income consequent to a reopening notice [this is prior to G.K.N. Driveshaft (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra)]. The Court negatived the submissions of the Revenue's Counsel that as the petitioner had filed its Return pursuant to the notice, he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. This inter alia on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case before it judicial interve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue to now challenge the orders of the Commission. This was negatived by the Court on the ground that mere participation by a party will not confer jurisdiction in the absence of jurisdiction being vested on the Authority under the law. The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction as there was no alternative remedy available from the orders passed by the Settlement Commission under the Act. This is indisputedly not so in the prsent facts. Thus inapplicable. 12. In the present case, the Assessing Officer is bestowed with the powers to reopen an assessment subject to satisfaction of conditions laid down in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The petitioner has chosen to submit itself to his jurisdiction and the objections to the reaso....