TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06, therefore, same cannot be allowed to be reopened in the garb of reassessment. Likewise second ground of opinion was also subject matter of the appeal before C.I.T. (A), therefore, same is also not permitted to be reopened in the name of reassessment. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned notices for re-assessment are hereby quashed." 2. Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that respondent, who filed writ petition, wrongly claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs. 3,05,73,40,212/- by claiming to be owner of a Drilling Ship/Rig, named 'Bellford Dolphin' and the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,31,71,89,885/- to respondent under the belief that he is the owner of Drilling Ship/Rig, but it was later revealed that Drilling Ship/Rig named as 'Bellford Dolphin' belonged to another entity, which also claimed depreciation thereupon. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing assessment order in case of another entity, namely, M/s Dolphin Drilling Limited for the Assessment Year 2005-06, it was revealed that drilling ship 'Bellford Dolphin' is ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Single Judge was uncalled for. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge by contending that the notice issued to respondent was barred by second proviso to Section 147 of Income Tax Act, as inserted by Finance Act, 2008, therefore learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the notice issued to the respondent. 10. The interference by learned Single Judge with the notice issued to respondent under Section 148 of Income Tax Act is based on the premise that question of ownership of Drilling Ship/Rig was accepted twice by C.I.T. (Appeal) in Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-2006, therefore, the same issue cannot be allowed to be reopened under the garb of reassessment. 11. We asked learned counsel for the respondent to place the relevant portion of the order passed by C.I.T. (Appeals) or I.T.A.T which indicates that question of ownership of the Drilling Ship/Rig was also in issue before the C.I.T. (Appeals) or I.T.A.T. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, was not able to show anything in the judgment rendered by C.I.T. (Appeals) or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T.) which may support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all the other forums and modes of seeking [remedy] are excluded.'" 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments instead of filing his explanation/reply to the show-cause notices, has filed a writ petition before the High Court impugning the said notices. 12. In our considered view, at the said stage of issuance of the notices under Section 153-C, the assessee could have addressed his grievances and explained his stand to the assessing authority by filing an appropriate reply to the said notices instead of filing the writ petition impugning the said notices. It is settled law that when an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must exhaust the same before approaching the writ court. In Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. v. CCT [(2009) 17 SCC 547], this Court had allowed the assessee therein to withdraw the original writ petition filed before the High Court as the said proceedings came to be filed against the show-cause notice and observed that the High Court should not have interfered in the matter as the writ petition was filed without even reply to the show-cause notice. This Court further observed as follows: (SCC p. 548, para 3) "3. ... In the circumstances, we could have dismissed these civil appeals only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory r....