787-16-wp=.

doc

M/s.AmayaInfrastructurePvt.Ltd.
v/s.
IncomeTaxOfficer,Ward12(1)(1)&Ors.

C
ou

WRITPETITIONNO.787OF2016

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION

..Petitioner

..Respondents

ig
h

Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel a/w Aashish Gabhale for the
petitioner
Mr.ArvindPintofortherespondent

CORAM:M.S.SANKLECHA&

A.K.MENON,J.J.

DATED:20 thAPRIL,2016.

ba
y

P.C.

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

challengesthenoticedated30thMarch,2015issuedunderSection148

om

oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961(theAct).Theimpugnednoticeseeksto
reopentheassessmentforAssessmentYear200809.

2.

The impugned notice dated 30th March, 2015 issued under

Section148oftheActintimatedtothepetitionerthattheAssessing
Officerhasreasontobelievethatincomechargeabletotaxhasescaped
assessment. Itfurthercalleduponthe petitionertofileaReturnof
Incomeintheprescribedformforthesubjectassessmentyearwithin30

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

1 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

daysoftheserviceofthenotice. Thepetitioneradmittedlyfiledits

rt

Return of Income only on 29th December, 2015 for the subject

C
ou

assessmentyearandintermsoftheorderoftheApexCourtinG.K.N
Driveshafts(India)Ltd.Vs.IncomeTaxOfficer&Ors.259ITR19
sought reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in support of the

3.

ig
h

impugnednotice.

On 4th January, 2016, the Assessing Officer furnished to the

petitionerreasonsrecordedwhileissuingtheimpugnednoticedated

30thMarch,2015.Thereafter,on4thJanuary,2016itself,theAssessing
Officer issued notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act

ba
y

seekingvariousdetailsforthepurposesofassessingthepetitionersto
taxinrespectoftheassessmentyear200809.Theabovenoticesalso

om

calleduponthepetitionertoattendtheofficeoftheAssessingOfficer
on8thJanuary,2016.

4.

On8th January,2016the petitionersoughtanadjournmentof

the hearing fixed on 8th January, 2016 before the Assessing Officer.
Thisonthegroundthatthereasonsforreopeningoftheassessment
received from the Assessing Officer have been forwarded to its
consultantandasthematterisveryolditiscollectinginformationand

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

2 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

wouldproducetheinformationsoughtforwithinaweek. Thereafter,

rt

on14thJanuary,2016,thepetitionerssubmittedthedetailscalledforby

C
ou

the Assessing Officer but pointed out that the information is being
submitted subject to the objections to the impugned notice which
wouldbefiledbyit. On22 nd January,2016thepetitionersfiledits
objectionstothereasonsrecordedinsupportoftheimpugnednotice.

ig
h

On25thJanuary,2016,theAssessingOfficerdisposedoftheobjections
to the reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. This
petition was filed on 2nd March, 2016 and at the instance of the

petitionersadinterimreliefwasgrantedstayingtheimpugnednotice

ba
y

dated30thMarch,2015.

5.

Attheveryoutset,Mr.Pinto,learnedCounselfortheRevenue

proceedings before the Assessing Officer in respect of the impugned

notice,thisCourtshouldnotexerciseitsextraordinarywritjurisdiction
infavourofthepetitioners.

om

raisedapreliminaryobjectionthatasthepetitionerhasparticipatedin

6.

Intheaboveview,withoutgoingintothemeritsofthereasons

recordedinsupportoftheimpugnednoticeandthemannerinwhich
theobjectionshavebeendealtwithbytheAssessingOfficer,wecalled

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

3 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

uponMr.Gupta,thelearnedSeniorCounseltoaddressusonlyonthe

rt

issueofexercisingourextraordinaryjurisdictioninthepresentfacts

C
ou

viz the petitioner having participated in the assessment proceedings

andtherebeinganefficaciousalternativeremedyundertheActfrom
theorderspassedbytheAssessingOfficer.

In response, Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the

ig
h

7.

petitionerssubmitsasunder:
(a)

The reasons in support of reopening of the impugned notice

weregiventothepetitionerson4 th January,2016. Thepetitioners

fileditsobjectionson22ndJanuary,2015.However,inthemeantime,

ba
y

thepetitionersrespondedtothenoticedated4 th January,2016ofthe
AssessingOfficerseekinginformationbyitsletterdated14 th January,

om

2016. This because the petitioner was apprehensive that in the

absenceofgivingtherequiredinformation,theAssessingOfficermay
proceedtopassanassessmentordertoitsprejudice;
(b)

Thegivingofinformationbytheletterdated14 thJanuary,2016

waswithoutprejudicetoitsobjectionstothereasonswhichweretobe
filedinduecourse. Thus,therewasnoparticipationinproceedings
beforetheAssessingOfficer;and
(c)

Acompilationofjudgmentswerefiledinsupportofthepetition.

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

4 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

wasplacedonlyuponfollowingthreedecisions:

rt

Howeveroutofthecompilation,attentionwasinvitedtoandreliance

CommissionerofIncomeTaxVs.ITSC&Ors.365ITR87.

(ii)

WhirlpoolCorporationVs.RegistrarofTradeMarks&Ors.

C
ou

(i)

8SCC1.
(iii)

P.R.EaswaranVs.SixthIncomeTaxOfficer,CircleII,Coimbatore

8.

ig
h

72ITR263.

OurjurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiais

plenary. Therefore,wewouldexercisethesamewheneverweareof

theviewthatinterestofjusticewouldrequireitsexercise.Weareclear
that having of jurisdiction does not make it obligatory upon us to

ba
y

exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction without reference to the

factsbeforeus. Therefore,wherethepetitionershaveparticipatedin
the proceedings under the Act before the Assessing Officer and

om

thereafterfileawritpetitiononthegroundthattheauthorityhasno
jurisdiction, we normally will not entertain the petition. This is
particularlysoasaneffectivealternativeremedyisavailableunderthe
Act,tosetasidetheorderspassedbytheauthority,whichthepetitioner
claimsiswithoutjurisdiction. TheprovisionsunderSection147and
148of the Act empowersthe Assessing Officer to issue a reopening
notice,subjecttosatisfactionoftheparameterssetouttherein. Itis

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

5 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

open to the assessee to challenge the order of the Assessing Officer

rt

under the Act on the ground that the conditions precedent for its

C
ou

exercisearenotsatisfied. Thiscouldbedoneeitherbychallengingit
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by challenging it
beforetheauthoritiesundertheAct.Therefore,whereapartysubmits
itselftothejurisdictionoftheAssessingOfficerandchallengestheissue

ig
h

ofhisjurisdictionduringthecourseofproceedingsofreassessment,we
wouldnotnormallyexerciseourjurisdiction.Thisisalsoparticularly
soasthepetitionersarenotremedylessandcanchallengetheorders

oftheAssessingOfficerbeforetheappellateauthoritiesundertheAct

ba
y

andsecurethesameultimaterelief.

9.

In this case, we find that the petitioners have filed detailed

om

informationcalledforbytheAssessingOfficerunderSection142(1)
and 143(2) of the Act and thus participated in the assessment
proceedings.Thishavingbeendone,itisnotopenforthepetitioners
to now contend that this Court should exercise its extraordinary
jurisdictionandprohibittheAuthoritiesfromproceedingfurtherwith
the impugned notice. This is particularly so as the question of
jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioners before the Assessing
Officer during the assessment proceedings under the Act. In the

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

6 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

present facts, the petitioners have participated in the proceedings

rt

beforetheAssessingOfficer.Theobjectionstothereasonsrecordedby

C
ou

the AssessingOfficer in supportof the impugnednotice during the

assessment proceedings is to point out to him the reassessment
proceedingsarebadastherequirementofSections147and148ofthe
Actarenotsatisfied.Itwouldbecompletelydifferentscenariowhere

ig
h

the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings before the

AssessingOfficerandobjecttoexerciseofjurisdictionbytheAssessing
Officer at the very threshold and not while participating in the

reassessmentproceedings. Insuchcases,itisnota case of aparty

seekingidenticalreliefbytwoparallelmodes. Theorderspassedby

ba
y

the Assessing Officer are subject to effective, efficacious alternative

remedyundertheAct. Therefore,weseenoreasontoexerciseour

om

extraordinaryjurisdictioninthefactsofthiscase.

10.

Itmayalsobepointedoutthattheimpugnednoticewasissued

on30th March,2015callinguponthepetitionerstofileitsReturnof
Income within 30 days. However, the petitioners chose to file its
ReturnofIncomeonlyon29th December,2015andthereaftersought
reasonsin support of the impugned notice. Thisdelayin filingthe
ReturnofIncomecannotbelostsightofwhenonebearsinmindthe

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

7 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

factthatthereopeningproceedingshavetobecompletedwithinone

rt

yearfromtheendofthefinancialyear,inwhichtheimpugnednotice

C
ou

seekingtoreopentheassessmentwasissued.Thisisalsoevidenceof
the fact that the object of the petitioners seems to be to delay the
proceedingssoastoleaveverylittletimefortheAssessingOfficerto

completethereassessmentproceedings. Theaforesaidconductofthe

ig
h

petitioners coupled with its submitting to the jurisdiction of the

AssessingOfficer,disentitlesthepetitionerstotheextraordinaryrelief

11.

underArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia.

ThethreedecisionsonwhichMr.Gupta,learnedSeniorCounsel

ba
y

forthepetitionersplacereliance,inourview,donotapplytothefacts
andcircumstancesarisinginthisparticularcase.Theexerciseofour

om

extraordinaryjurisdictionisdependentuponthefactsarisingbefore
us. The case laws can only be guidelines in exercise of our extra
ordinarywritjurisdiction.Thecaselawsrelieduponarenotapplicable
forreasonslistedhereunder:
(a)

In P.R.Easwaran(supra),theHighCourtofMadrasentertained

thepetitioneventhoughthepetitionershadfileditsReturnofIncome
consequent to a reopening notice [this is prior to G.K.N. Driveshaft
(India)Pvt.Ltd.(supra)].TheCourtnegativedthesubmissionsofthe

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

8 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

Revenue'sCounselthatasthepetitionerhadfileditsReturnpursuantto

rt

thenotice,hehassubmittedhimselftothejurisdictionoftheAssessing

C
ou

OfficerandtheCourtshouldnotexerciseitsextraordinaryjurisdiction.
Thisinteraliaonthegroundthatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
casebeforeitjudicialinterventionwasjustified. Inthepresentfacts,
we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our extraordinary

ig
h

jurisdictionasthepetitionerhasinfactsubmittedtothejurisdictionof
theAssessingOfficerandhasanefficaciousalternativeremedyunder
theAct.

The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in

(b)

WhirlpoolCorporation(Supra),inthepresentfactsisinappropriateas

ba
y

the petitioners therein had not invoked the writ jurisdiction of the
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after having

om

participated in the proceedings before the Officer under the Trade

Marks Act. In this case, we have found that the petitioners have
participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and
submittedtheexerciseofhispowerstoreassessisbad.Thiswasdone
duringthereassessmentproceedings.
(c)

TherelianceupontheITSC(supra)ismisplacedasthechallenge

therewasto anorderoftheSettlementCommission fromwhichno

alternative remedy of an appeal is available. The Settlement

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

9 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

Commissioninthefactsofthatcaseexercisedjurisdictioneventhough

rt

according to the Revenue in its challenge before the Court, the

C
ou

applicanthadfailedtomaketrueandfulldisclosureofallthematerial
factsinitsapplicationforsettlement. Thus,itwascontendedthatit
hadnotjurisdiction.TheassesseebeforetheCourtpleadedthatasthe
Revenue had participated in the proceedings before the Settlement

ig
h

Commission,itisnotopentotheRevenuetonowchallengetheorders
oftheCommission. ThiswasnegativedbytheCourtontheground
thatmere participation bya partywill notconfer jurisdiction inthe

absenceof jurisdiction beingvestedon the Authorityunder thelaw.

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction as there was no

ba
y

alternativeremedyavailablefromtheorderspassedbytheSettlement
CommissionundertheAct. Thisisindisputedlynotsointheprsent

om

facts.Thusinapplicable.

12.

Inthepresentcase,theAssessingOfficerisbestowedwiththe

powersto reopen an assessmentsubjectto satisfaction of conditions

laid down in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. The petitioner has
chosen to submit itself to his jurisdiction and the objections to the
reasons are made in the course of reassessment proceedings. The
petitionersinthiscasehavingparticipatedintheproceedings,donot

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

10 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::

787-16-wp=.doc

deserveourexercisingextraordinaryjurisdictionunderArticle226of

rt

theConstitutionofIndia.Thepetitionersarenotremedyless.They

C
ou

have an effective alternative remedy available under the Act. All

contentionsleftopentobeurgedbeforetheAuthorities.

13.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition is

14.

ig
h

dismissed.

Atthisstage,Mr.Guptaseeksastayofthisorderforaperiodof

fourweeksfrom today. Mr.Pinto,learnedCounselforthe Revenue

states that the Assessing Officer would not act upon the impugned

ba
y

noticeforaperiodof3weeksfromtoday.Intheaboveview,forthe
purposesofcomputingtheperiodoflimitationunderSection153of

(A.K.MENON,J.)

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)

om

theAct,afurtherperiodof3weeksfromtodaywouldstandexcluded.

Uday S. Jagtap

::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016

11 of 11

http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2016 17:19:18 :::