TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion available in Form 26AS in the web-portal of the Income Tax Department, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, craving for grant of following relief(s): "Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to- 1) Admit the Writ application; 2) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to Show Cause as to why the order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the IT Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 under Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition shall not be quashed; 3) And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or sufficient cause, then the rule may be made absolute. 4) And upon hearing further be pleased to quash the order dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the IT Act and the consequential penal proceedings may be declared as illegal and without jurisdiction. 5) And further your Lordships may please to pass such other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and submissions: 4. Sri Tushar Kanti Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, having taken this Court to statement of income for the year ended 31st March, 2019 (Assessment Year 2019-20) along with return furnished to the Income Tax Department, submitted that the consideration received on account of aforesaid sale of immovable property has been shown under the Head of Income-"Long Term Capital Gains", claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 4.1. He has also drew attention of this Court to documents showing transactions in Form 26AS to demonstrate that given an opportunity to produce relevant material in his possession, and if such evidence is taken into consideration the demand could be reduced to nil. With humility he would submit that due to prolonged ill-health, the petitioner could not avail opportunity to substantiate his claim before the authority concerned in response to show-cause notice dated 11.03.2022 under Section 148A. He fervently requested for setting aside the assessment order, so as to enable the petitioner to appear and produce the documents for consideration of the assessing officer. 5. Sri Subash Chandra Mohanty, le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l) No.21707 of 2024. 6.3. Be that be, this Court appreciates that the circumstances that prevailed beyond the control of the petitioner at the relevant point of time rendered him indisposed in filing response before the Assessing Officer. This Court is persuaded by such material as found place in the writ petition for demonstrating double taxation. This Court fails to appreciate the contention of the learned Standing Counsel objecting to grant of an opportunity to furnish the evidence available with the petitioner for production before the assessing officer for re-adjudication. Had the document been adduced before the assessing officer the demand would have been reduced to nil and withholding the material available would not enure to the benefit of the assessee. 6.4. This Court takes note of the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company Vrs. CIT, (2001) 9 SCC 725 wherein it has been observed as follows: "1. It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus: 'We will straight away agree with the assessee's submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciple of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. Vrs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 56; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia Vrs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; and State of H.P. Vrs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499). 12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son Vrs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC....