2024 (1) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion in WPO 1341 of 2023 was dismissed. The appellant had challenged the re-assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31st May, 2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The learned Single Bench after noting the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant/ writ petitioner and also taking note of the decision relied on in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 99 Taxmann.com 409 (Del), pointed out the distinguishing features in the said decision and ultimately held that a writ Court cannot act as an assessing officer or an appellate authority to scrutinize the facts and findings based on the evidence made by the assessing officer in the fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessing officer and there was no justification for reopening the assessment. In support of his contention the learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. (Supra) and the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Goyal Versus Union of India & Ors. (2023) 453 ITR 535 (Cal) and Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. MAT 648 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023 . 3. Mr. Aryak Dutt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department submitted that the learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy and the issues which are raised by the assessee in the writ petition as well as in this appeal are all factual matters which can be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a ground which can be urged by the appellant before the appellate authority. Therefore, the learned Single Bench was justified in relegating the appellant to avail the alternate remedy. The decision in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. is factually distinguishable as the petitioner therein sought for quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court on going through the factual position found that the primary facts have not been shown to be false and the five companies which were said to be shell companies were found to exist. Therefore, the said decision does not render assistance to the case of the appellant. The decision in Dinesh Kumar Goyal arose out of a challenge of an order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act. On going....