Assessee can’t seek parallel remedy by filing writ on same day of lodging of objections before AO: Bombay HC
- News|Blog|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 21 October, 2021
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: John Sebastian Zezito Lobo v. ACIT - [2021] 131 taxmann.com 79 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Dipankar Datta, CJ. and M.S. Sonak, J.
- Kapil D. Kerkar and T. Sequeira, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Ms. Amira A. Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice under section 148 to assessee seeking to reopen the assessment. After receipt of impugned notice assessee sought reasons for issuance thereof, which were supplied to him by the Assessing Officer.
After receiving communication from AO, the assessee lodged an objection by his representation before him, urging several grounds. However, on the same day, he also filed the writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The assessee challenged the reassessment notice on the ground that the jurisdictional fact for issuance of such notice was absent.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court held that they do not appreciate the attempt of the assessee to have the notice under section 148 interdicted by presenting the instant writ petition on the same day of lodging of objection to the notice by submitting a detailed reply.
If the assessee perceived that there was no justification for the AO to issue the reassessment notice since the jurisdictional fact was absent, he could have raised the said point at the first instance before High Court prior to submitting to the jurisdiction of the AO.
An error of jurisdictional fact is a point on which an action for judicial review could be maintained without relegating the notice to the AO. In such an event, the Court could have examined the point raised by the assessee. However, the assessee appeared to have pursued the writ remedy as to a parallel remedy, which is impermissible in law.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963/[2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) (para 8)
- Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 161 Taxman 316/291 ITR 500 (SC) (para 8).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
