TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n seeking the following reliefs: "(10.1) Call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. (10-2) Quashing the notice dated 11.03.2015 being Annexure P/2 issued under S.148 as the same is patently illegal and de hors the statute. (10-3) Declaring that the reassessment proceedings initiated under S.147/148 as lacking jurisdiction as being time barred and based on mere change of opinion. (10-4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted. 10B Interim Relief That it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the proceedings arising out of or in pursuant to notice under S.148 of the Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed an order on 2.3.2016 disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that a reassessment notice can be issued only after fulfilling the requirements prescribed under Section 147 of the Act, 1961. He would submit that reopening a concluded assessment is a quasi-judicial function and the same cannot be undertaken in contravention of the statutory provisions. He would submit that there was no material available with the authority concerned to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. He would contend that Section 147 of the Act, 1961 affects the substantive rights of an assessee by permitting the reopening of concluded assessments and protec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax V. Kelvinator of India Limited, (2010) 2 SCC 723. (14) Radha Krishan industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771. (15) Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 801." 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the reassessment order for the assessment year 2008-09 had already been passed on 23.3.2016 and that the said order was placed as Annexure-R/1 along with the return filed on 7.9.2016. He would submit that, despite having knowledge of the said order, the petitioner failed to challenge it. He would contend that the respondent authorities had compli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed fact that the petitioner has not challenged the reassessment order dated 23.3.2016 in the present petition. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, held that where a party has several remedies for the same cause of action, he must elect his remedy and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of proceedings. The relevant paragraph 25 is reproduced hereinbelow: "25. It is a well-established position that the remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy. The fact that the party may have s....