Gayatri Traders v. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax (Bihar And Jharkhand),Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15275 of 2023 ====================================================== Gayatri Traders through its Properietor, Nitu Devi, W/o Deepak Kumar, aged40 years, Female, resident of Village- Deepnagar, Post and P.S- Deepnagar,District -Nalanda, Bihar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax (Bihar and Jharkhand),Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Biharsharif, Nalanda. 3.The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYAORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 1325-02-2025 Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel forthe petitioner and Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the Department of Income Tax (hereinafter referredto as the ‘Department’). 2. This writ application has been preferred seeking tochallenge the assessment order dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure-10Series) in respect of Assessment Year 2014-15. Brief Facts of the Case 3. The assessee had filed her original return of incomeon 02.03.2015 under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) declaring her total income as Rs.2,21,900/-. On the basis of certaininformation available with the Respondents, the case wasselected for reassessment proceedings and it was reopened forscrutiny after due verification and belief that there had been anescapement of income chargeable to tax. 4. In earlier round of proceeding, the petitionerchallenged the assessment order dated 11.03.2022 passed underSection 147 read with Section 144B of the Act of 1961 and thedemand notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2.This Court took note of the fact recorded in the impugned orderthat the petitioner had neither responded to the notice to showcause nor placed on record any material in support ofcontentions leading to the passing of the impugned order. TheCourt noticed that this statement recorded in the impugned orderwas incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner had submitted itsresponse on 05[th] March, 2022 itself. This Court, therefore, heldthat perhaps the reply submitted by the petitioner escaped theattention of the Assessing Officer. In such circumstance, theorder of assessment and the impugned demand were quashedand it was left open for the Assessing Officer to pass a freshorder in accordance with law. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6467 of 2022, the Assessing Officerconsidered the matter afresh. It is recorded that during thecourse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officerprovided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to file hersubmission, however, the assessee did not co-operate andexplained the issue satisfactorily. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 6467 of 2022, the Assessing Officerconsidered the matter afresh. It is recorded that during thecourse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officerprovided sufficient opportunities to the assessee to file hersubmission, however, the assessee did not co-operate andexplained the issue satisfactorily. 6. It appears from the fresh assessment order ascontained in Annexure-10 Series that in paragraph 4.2, theAssessing Authority has taken note of the synopsis of all thesubmissions of the assessee relating to the issues. The AssessingOfficer has also gone through the documents such ascomputation of income, ITR, Sales, Purchase Register, Ledgerof Indirect Expenses, Cash Book, Audit Report along withBalance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, details of salarygiven to employees for the Assessment Year 2014-15. It is alsorecorded that all the replies of the assessee have been verified.The name of the Sundry Creditors and the purchases made fromthem during the year have been considered, however, onverification, it has been found that the entire books ofsales/purchase and all other books of accounts are not genuineand are fabricated. It also transpires that the then AssessingOfficer while conducting the previous reassessment proceeding had issued notices to all the suppliers, however, the supplierseither remained silent by not replying to the notices or had givenreply which negates the claim of the assessee of purchases andsales of seeds. 7. It has also been found that most of the suppliers donot have a valid PAN and the assessee had not submitted anysupporting documents to prove the genuineness of thepurchases. It is stated that the assessee was asked to furnishcomplete details of her purchase parties as they are farmers andwas asked to give details of sales made above Rs.20,000/- anddetails of suppliers having invoice over and above Rs.40,000/-which she was incapable as she mentioned in her replies dated04.03.2022 and 19.07.2023. Even in the fresh assessmentproceeding, sufficient opportunities were granted to the assesseebut it is stated that the assessee completely failed to establish theidentity, creditworthiness and genuineness of all the partiesunder subject and also genuineness of her claim of purchasesfrom these parties. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 8. Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that all these transactions have been donethrough the bank account. It is stated that the payments have been made to the parties through her bank account, therefore,the Assessing Officer should have considered this aspect of thematter and there was no reason to take a view that the books ofsales/purchase and other books of accounts are not genuine andare fabricated. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 9. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department would submit that on a bare reading of theimpugned assessment order, it would appear that the order hasbeen passed after complying with the principles of naturaljustice. The Assessing Officer has, on the grounds stated in theimpugned order, come to a conclusion that the entire books ofsales/purchase and all other books of accounts are not genuineand are fabricated. In such circumstance, it is submitted that thisCourt sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India maynot like to delve into an inquiry as to the genuineness of thedocument and it could best be left for the competent authoritiesunder the statute to deal with the finding of facts. 10. It is pointed out that the appellant has a remedyavailable under Section 246A of the Act of 1961 by way offiling an appeal against the impugned assessment order. Consideration 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we 10. It is pointed out that the appellant has a remedyavailable under Section 246A of the Act of 1961 by way offiling an appeal against the impugned assessment order. Consideration 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have also gone through the impugned assessment order. It is notthe case of the petitioner that she has not been given appropriateopportunity of hearing, therefore, in our opinion, this writapplication directly filed against the impugned order ofassessment cannot be entertained as framed. The AssessingAuthority has recorded a finding that the entire books ofsales/purchase and all other books of accounts are not genuineand are fabricated. 12. In such circumstance, this Court sitting underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India will not take upon itselfto go into the genuineness of the documents when the forum ofthe Appellate Authority is available by way of remedy providedunder Section 246A of the Act of 1961. This Court sitting in it’sextraordinary writ jurisdiction will go by its self-contained codeof restraint andwill not delve into an inquiry into thegenuineness of the documents at this stage. 13. We, therefore, decline to entertain this writapplication leaving it open to the petitioner to seek her remedyin appeal before the Appellate Authority. 14. If an appeal is preferred within a period of eight lekhi/- U weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider thesame and in case, a question of limitation arises forconsideration, the same will be considered keeping in view thatthis writ application was filed under some bonafide legal adviceand it was presented in this Court on 19.09.2023. 15. For a period of eight weeks from today, therespondents shall not take any coercive action. 16. This writ application stands disposed ofaccordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)