TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ria and the questions of law involved are also identical, therefore, both these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Succinctly stated the facts, giving rise to both these writ petitions, are that after death of original assessee, Shri Rajendra Singh Khetasar, being his widow and legal heir, petitioner's income was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007- 08 vide assessment order dated 30th December, 2009 (Annex.1) and for Assessment Year 2008-09, assessment order was passed under Section 148/143(3) of the Act on 10th of November, 2010. Pertaining to Assessment Year 2007-08, petitioner's income was assessed to the tune of Rs. 7,68,55,600/- and interest was charged under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C, whereas for Assessment Year 2008-09 income was assessed to the tune of Rs. 6,41,29,650/- and interest was charged under Section 234A/B/C of the Act. Feeling contended with the assessment of income for both the assessment years, petitioner assailed both assessment orders, only to the extent of charging of interest under Section 234A/B/C of the Act, before the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vis-à-vis both the assessment years after considering the regular books of accounts of the assessee and, therefore, there was no occasion for resorting to Section 147/148 of the Act for re-assessment. For strengthening her positive assertions, the petitioner-assessee has also taken shelter of the fact that even no mistake was noticed by the Department while considering her application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petitions that there was no failure on her part to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for both the assessment years. Rejection of objections submitted by the petitioner by a vague, cryptic and non-speaking order is also set out a ground in the writ petitions to assail the impugned action of the respondent-Department. With a view to assail the impugned action of the respondent-Department, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petitions that she has reasons to believe that impugned notices were issued on audit objection just to thwart objections of the assessment getting barred by time. Simultaneously, the petitioner also pleaded that audit objections are dropped by the Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liminary objections, it is submitted by the respondent-Department that the writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the competent authority of the Department has initiated the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act while adhering to due process of law. It is also submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded cogent reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. An objection is also sought to be raised by the Department that writ petition against the show-cause notice is not maintainable. Availability of alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Act is also pleaded in the return for non-suiting the petitioner-assessee. Referring to some of the legal precedents for buttressing this preliminary objection, the respondent-Department has specifically pleaded that when under a fiscal statute, hierarchy of remedy of appeals are provided, the party has to exhaust them instead of seeking relief by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Department has also justified its action by asserting with full emphasis that proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finalized for both the assessment years right upto ITAT is sough to be reopened by the AO on mere change of opinion and as such it is impermissible. Learned counsel has urged that powers under Section 147/148 of the Act cannot be exercised by the AO, while relying on the revenue audit objections, nor the said power can be exercised at the dictates of officer higher in hierarchy may it be Chief Income-tax Commissioner. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel contends that the AO is the sole repository of such extraordinary powers when he has reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment and not otherwise. Assailing the reasons assigned for reopening of the assessment proceedings, learned senior counsel submits that the reasons are vague and cryptic not satisfying the requirements envisaged under Section 147 of the Act. Mr. N.M. Ranka learned senior counsel, while dilating on merits, would urge that land consolidation expenses for both the assessment years were considered by the AO and then income of the assessee was assesseed ought not to have been made subject-matter of alleged income escaping the assessment after final adjudication by the ITAT in this be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome-tax Act, 1922 (for short, 'Act of 1922') which is pari materia to Section 147 of the Act. Highlighting the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1922 as amended in the year 1948, the Court observed: "To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue notice in respect of assessments beyond the period of four years, but within a period of eight years, from the end of the relevant year two conditions have therefore to be satisfied. The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such "under assessment" has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year. Both these conditions are conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Incometax Officer could have jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or re-assessment beyond the period of four ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y facts more inferences than one could be drawn, it would not be possible to say that the assessee should have drawn any particular inference and communicated it to the assessing authority. How could an assessee be charged with failure to communicate an inference, which he might or might not have drawn? It may be pointed out that the Explanation to the sub-section has nothing to do with "inferences" and deals only with the question whether primary material facts not disclosed could still be said to be constructively disclosed on the ground that with due diligence the Income-tax Officer could have discovered them from the facts actually disclosed. The Explanation has not the effect of enlarging the section, by casting a duty on the assessee to disclose "inferences"-to draw the proper inferences being the duty imposed on the Income-fax Officer. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that while the duty of the assessee is to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts, it does not extend beyond this." ii. Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. (1) Kelvinator of India ltd. [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)]. Supreme Court in this verdict, while taking note of the amendment unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer." iii. Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Vardhman Industries [(2014) 363 ITR 625 (Raj.) The Division Bench of this Court in this verdict while examining the condition precedent for issuance of notice for re14 assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act declined to interfere with the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by rejecting appeal of the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act. Reiterating the principle that the words 'reason to believe' did not admit of conferment of arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion, the Court held: "It is no longer res integra that a mere change in the opinion of the Assessing Officer after completion of the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act is not a legally approved determinant for valid initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act the essential and inviolable condition precedent therefor being the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such a reason has to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecitals "has reason to believe" pre-supposes that the Assessing Officer on scrutinizing the available materials for resorting to such powers may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be a mere pretence..." In the same verdict, while considering the objection of the Revenue about availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Sections 246 and 246-A of the Act, the said objection was overruled in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Court held: "Lastly, adverting to the objection of the Revenue about availability of alternative remedy under section 246 and 246A of the Act, suffice it to state that its availability to a suitor is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that without exhausting such alternative remedy a writ petition would not be maintainable. Constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the suitor. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority higher in hierarchy. The Court held: "We may now consider the effect of the "Noting". The noting of the Assessing Officer was specific. It was stated so in the proceedings sheet at the instance of the higher authorities itself. No doubt in terms of the circular letter issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Commissioner or for that matter any other higher authority may have supervisory jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority. It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment the Assessing Officer shall be bound by the statutory circulars issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes but it is another thing to say that the assessing authority exercising quasi-judicial function keeping in view the scheme contained in the Act, would lose its independence to pass an independent order of assessment." ix. Commissioner of Income-tax Calcutta V/s. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [(1971) 79 ITR 609 (SC)]. Supreme Court in this verdict while construing Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Income-tax Officer about the inference which the Income-tax Officer may raise from those facts. The terms of the Explanation to section 34(1) also do not impose a more onerous obligation. Mere production of the books of account or other evidence from which material facts could with due diligence have been discovered does not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of section 34(1), but where on the evidence and the materials produced the Income-tax Officer could have reached a conclusion other than the one which he has reached, a proceeding under section 34(1)(a) will not lie merely on the ground that the Income-tax Officer has raised an inference which he may later regard as erroneous. The assessee had disclosed his books of account and evidence from which material facts could be discovered : it was under no obligation to inform the Income-tax Officer about the possible inferences which may be raised against him. It was for the Income-tax Officer to raise such an inference and if he did not do so the income which has escaped assessment cannot be brought to tax under section 34 (1)(a)." x. Global Signal Cables (India) P. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our view-point, we hold that the notice dated March 29, 2004, under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated March 2, 2005, are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above." (underlining added) The same principle is reiterated in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 355 ITR 356 (Delhi). Also in Microsoft Corporation (I) Ltd v. Deputy CIT W.P.(C.) No.284/2013, decided on May 23, 2013) [2013] 357 ITR 50 (Delhi) a Division Bench of this court had observed as under (page 67): "From the above, it is evident that merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment is not sufficient for reopening the assessment beyond the four year period referred to above. It is essential that the escapement of income from assessment must be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to, inter alia, disclose material facts, fully and truly. If this condition is not satisfied, there would be a bar to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....making the original assessment, it does not empower any ITO to reopen the assessment under S.147(a) of the Act. A catena of decisions have been cited by Mr. Ranka in support of the view taken above. They are : (1) Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), (2) CIT v. Burlop Dealers Ltd. [1971] 79 ITR 609 (SC), (3) Sheo Nath Singh v. AAC of IT [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), (4) Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 (SC), (5) Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC), (6) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 996 (SC) and (7) General Mrigendra Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana v. ITO [1980] 123 ITR 329 (Delhi)." xii. Paladiya Brothers & Co. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2015) 376 ITR 567 (Guj.)] Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in this verdict dilated on the condition precedent for reassessment and issuance of notice. The escapement of income must be occasioned by failure of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts is also emphasized in this verdict. The Court held:- "Applying the decision of Division Bench of this court in the case of Niko Resources Ltd. (supra) as well as Gujarat Lease F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argeable to tax has escaped assessment; (f) in case of assessment sought to be reopened are beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year then there should have been a failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts necessary for assessment; and (g) sanction of a superior officer to the reasons recorded, where required, in terms of section 151 of the Act should have been obtained before issuing of the impugned notice. All the above jurisdictional requirements have to be satisfied cumulatively, wherever applicable. Therefore, even if one the numerous jurisdictional requirements necessary for the issue of reopening notice is not satisfied, the reopening of an assessment fails. The sustainability of the reopening notice would be tested only on the basis of the reason recorded at the time of issuing the notice. Therefore, the reasons recorded at the time of issuing notice is the only evidence of the Assessing Officer's reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. These reasons cannot be added to, deleted from or supplemented. Besides when a notice for reass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO has exercised his power under Section 147/148 of the Act independently and there is no question of vulnerability of the re-assessment proceedings being initiated under the influence of a superior officer. Mr. Bissa has further urged that there is nothing on record to substantiate this positive assertion of the petitioner, and therefore, challenge laid to the re-assessment proceedings in both the writ petitions on this anvil cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that the re-assessment proceedings are initiated under the Act and equally efficacious remedy of appeal is also provided under the Act, therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed to bypass the alternative efficacious remedy and both the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on this count alone. Mr. Bissa, with full emphasis at his command, has submitted that in Civil Writ Petition No.4532/2015, after reopening the assessment proceedings, impugned order (Annex.9) has also been passed which can very well be assailed by the petitioner by way of appeal under Section 246A of the Act, and therefore, petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. While joining issue with the petitioner on Civil Writ Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana [1985] 3 SCC 267 this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case, neither has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternative remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reassess the entire material to reach a conclusion other than the one recorded by the learned Single Judge in both the orders, impugned in the present appeal." iv. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Kalanithi Maran [2014] 270 CTR 296 (Madras) Division Bench of Madras High Court also reiterated the same principle and non-suited the assessee for remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the event of availability of statutory remedy. The Court held: "We are concerned in all these cases not on the sufficiency of reasons on the part of the assessing officer for his belief at this stage. The legislative intent is to allow the assessing officer to go through the process of assessment. Even under Section 147 of the Act, a Court of law cannot presume a lack of jurisdiction, when a fact in issue requires an adjudication. It has to be exercised in terms of Sections 139, 143(2) and 143(3). Therefore, considering the scheme of the enactment, particularly, with reference to Sections 147 to 153 of the Act, we are of the view that an order passed on the objections of the assessee over adjudicating facts is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and incorporate it either in the assessment order or by passing a separate order." v. Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. V/s. Income-tax Officer [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC). Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 147 of the Act opined that Court is only required to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which department can reopen the case. The Court held: "In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceedings. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are lef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing authority is bound to decide by a speaking order before proceeding with reassessment of income chargeable to tax with regard to the relevant assessment year. (4) After the passing of the order of reassessment under Section 147 of the IT Act by the assessing authority, the assessee, if not satisfied with the order, can file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 246 thereof." viii. Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 103 TAXMAN 294 (SC) Supreme Court in this verdict did not find any infirmity in reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147(6) of the Act on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party. The Court held : "We are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in holding that the information given by the internal audit party could not be treated as information within the meaning of Section 147(b). The audit party has merely pointed out a fact which has been overlooked by the Income Tax Officer in the assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this Charitable Trust had expired on 22-9-1992 was not noticed by the ITO. This is not a case of informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was put to use before 30th September of the year under consideration, and, therefore, whether full depreciation at the specified rate during the year under consideration was allowable." x. PVP Ventures Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai [2015] 61 TAXMAN.com 232 (Madras) Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in this verdict examined the rigor of Section 147 read with Sections 72 and149 of the Act and declined to accept the plea of the assessee that reopening of assessment by AO is without application of mind when it is solely on the basis of audit report. The Court held: "The main contention of the petitioner is that there is no failure on the part of the petitioner in not disclosing fully and truly all materials facts necessary for the assessment year under consideration and in the absence of the same, the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent under Section 147 of the Act, after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, is illegal and invalid and thereby, the impugned proceeds cannot be sustained. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, in my considered opinion, is fallacious and has no force at all. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has reason to believe that the income, which is chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 has escaped assessment, in my opinion, are well within the jurisdiction of the respondent and legally sustainable and I do not find any arbitrariness in such reopening of the assessment. In such view of the matter, the reliance placed on the decisions, cited supra, by the learned senior counsel, would not any way help the petitioner since they dealt with the issue of matter wherein, the reassessment has been resorted beyond the period of four years. As regards the contention that the reassessment based on audit report without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable, is concerned, I do not find any force in the said contention since the respondent has given cogent reasons in his speaking order, dated 12.1.2015 while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, for reopening of the assessment and therefore, it cannot be stated that the respondent has not applied his mind and solely resorted to base on the audit report. In fact, the audit party is entitled to point out a factual error or omission in the assessment and it is settled law that reo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t London with the buyers. The appellant did not produce before the ITO any of the accounts which related to the foreign buyers. No reasons were given for the supply of manganese ore at a lower than the market rate. It is for the assessee to disclose all the primary facts before the ITO to enable him to account for the true income of the assessee. The proven charge of under-invoicing per se satisfies the second condition. The appellant's assessable income has to be determined on the basis of the price received by it for the goods exported. If the true price has not been disclosed and there was under-invoicing, the logical conclusion prima facie is that there has been failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts before the ITO. We are, therefore, satisfied that both the conditions required to attract the provisions of section 147(a) have been complied with in this case." I have heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the requisite materials available on record in both the petitions and bestowed consideration to the legal precedents cited at Bar by the rival parties. The significant question, which has cropped up in both these pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Ors. [(1975) 4 SCC 313] speaking for the Court Justice Krishna Iyer preferred a literal meaning of the tax statues for its interpretation and observed that "It is not for the Court to launch on obscure fiscal astrology but merely to construe what has been expressed in plain words". Therefore, if the words used are ambiguous and reasonably open to interpretations, benefit of interpretation can be given to the subject. Applying the principles of interpretation of statute adumbrated supra, a bare reading of Section 147 of the Act makes it amply clear that emphasis is on the words "reason to believe". While construing these words "reason to believe", the consistent view of the law courts is that these words did not admit of conferment of arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment on the basis of mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer, while construing these words to exercise powers under Section 147 of the Act, may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be a mere pretence. With the passage of time, the legal precedents have also dilated on the relevant mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148 of the Act issued to the petitioner-assessee for the Assessment Years 2007-08, which is subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4531/2015. The reasons recorded by the AO for issuance of notice reads as under:- On examination of the Assessment record, it is found that the assessee have claimed a land consolidation expense of Rs. 1,02,04,000/- in the year under consideration. But as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the assessee and M/s. PACL India Ltd. this expenditure activity relates to M/s PACL India Limited. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 1,02,04,000/- debited in the P/L Account on the basis of this activity was not an allowable expenditure to the assessee. Hence, I have reason to believe that the income of Rs. 1,02,04,000/- is escaped income for the A.Y. 2007-08. The Notice is hereby issued with prior recording of the reasons and after taking necessary approval as per the Income tax Act 1961. Similarly, for the Assessment Year 2008-09, a show cause notice is issued, which reads as under: "Please refer the Assessment Order in your case of the A.Y. 2008-09. In this case, you have claimed a land consolidation expenses of Rs. 60,27,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive, efficacious remedy of appeal. On factual aspects, reply submitted by the Revenue, in both the cases, is vague and evasive and as such is not in consonance and in conformity with the Order VIII Rule 3 & 5 CPC. When the averments made in the petitions are not specifically denied or disputed in the reply, the averments made therein would be deemed to have been admitted provided the plea raised is duly supported by evidence. Therefore, in substance, it is rather difficult to comprehend that the petitioner-assessee, for claiming land consolidation expenses vis-a-vis both the assessment years, has not candidly disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment years of these years. It is noteworthy that the original assessment order made under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 was not assailed by the Revenue and the assessee, while agreeing with the total income assessed, simply laid appeal on the interest charged and the same is reduced by the ITAT by its order dated 14th December, 2012. Even no mistake in the assessment order was noticed under Section 154 of the Act. Similarly, for the Assessment Year 2008-09, original asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act on 27th of March, 2015 and the said writ petition is filed on 27th of April, 2015 wherein challenge is also laid to the assessment order. The assessment order (Annex.9), in the said writ petition, is undoubtedly appellable order. The assessment order, which is impugned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4532/2015, can very well be assailed by the petitioner-assessee under Section 246 and 246A of the Act. Further, the remedy of appeal before the ITAT is available if the outcome of the appeal under Sections 246/246A of the Act is not productive for the assessee. The jurisdiction and powers of the appellate authority under the Act are very wide so as to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned action of the AO and the consequential orders. Appellate authority, while exercising its jurisdiction, can take care of about the grievance of the assessee in right perspective and if feel persuaded can very well redress. Though in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4531/2015 i.e. for the Assessment Year 2008-09, fresh assessment order by AO has not been passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Act but the bone of contention for reopening of the assessment remains the same i.e. land ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has also been followed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Akash Jain (supra) and Shubh Laxmi Buildcon Private Ltd. (supra). Supreme Court in an earlier decision in Champalal Binanai V/s. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal & Ors. [1971 (3) SCC 20], while considering availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the Income-tax Act, 1922, opined that before exhausting the said remedy, an assessee is not entitled to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held: Before parting with the case we deem it necessary once more to emphasize that the Income-tax Act provides a complete and self-contained machinery for obtaining relief against improper action taken by the departmental authorities, and normally the party feeling himself aggrieved by such action cannot be permitted to refuse to have recourse to that machinery and to approach the High Court directly against the action. The assessee had an adequate remedy under the Incometax Act which he could have availed of. He, however, did not move the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was competent to decide all questions of fact and law which the assessee could have ra....