Writ couldn’t be filed against issue that no adequate opportunity was provided to assessee: HC

Case Details: Sri Chandra Sekar Reddy Bokkalapall v. National Faceless Assessment Centre - [2022] 142 taxmann.com 109 (Telangana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ujjal Bhuyan & Dr. C. Sumalatha, JJ.

Facts of the Case

The instant writ petition was filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). AO served draft assessment order dated 4-9-2021 upon the assessee on 6-9-2021 and asked him to submit his response within three days, i.e., by 9-9-2021.

Assessee requested AO for a further one month to submit a response but AO granted time only till 13-9-2021. To ensure that the assessee did not go unrepresented before the final assessment order was passed, general response was submitted by him. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B. The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court against the said order.

High Court Held

The Telangana High Court held that there was no dispute to the proposition that if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or violation of fundamental rights, the High Court can invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies.

Whether the opportunity of hearing granted and availed was adequate or reasonable would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any straight jacket formula.

If the assessee contended that the opportunity of hearing was inadequate which affected his right to make a proper response, certainly the same can be gone into by the appellate authority, since it may require examination of facts which the High Court isn’t inclined to do in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Thus, the assessee was relegated to the forum of appeal before the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 246A.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Asstt. CST v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 180 (SC) (para 7)
  • Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (para 10)
  • Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1999 SC 22 (para 10).