Idicula Jacob v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Office Of Assistantcommissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road,Korba (C.g.) Comm

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 434 of 2019 {Arising out of order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WritPetition (T) No. 234 of 2018} 1. M/s Precision Engineering a Proprietorship Firm having its office at HIG-14,SBVP Nagar, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) through its proprietorIdicula Jacob, aged about 65 years, S/o Shri Idicula, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony,Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)SBVP Nagar, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) through its proprietorIdicula Jacob, aged about 65 years, S/o Shri Idicula, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony,Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) 2. Idicula Jacob, S/o Shri Idicula, aged about 65 years, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony,Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.)Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) ---- Appellants Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Office of AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road,Korba (C.G.) Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road,Korba (C.G.) 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-Korba office of Joint Commissionerof Income Tax, Range-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (C.G.) of Income Tax, Range-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (C.G.) 3. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry ofFinance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ---- Respondents For Appellant :Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent-Revenue :Shri Amit Chaudhari with Ms. Nausina Afrin Ali, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 15.01.2020 1.Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2019, application for condonation of delay in filing thepresent appeal. present appeal. 2.For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 33 days in filing theappeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally. appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 3.The correctnesses and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learned SingleJudge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised as to re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge inthis appeal. Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised as to re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge inthis appeal. 4.Heard Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants as well as ShriAmit Chaudhri and Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing therespondent-revenue. Amit Chaudhri and Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing therespondent-revenue. 5.The sequence of events reveals that the appellant Proprietorship concernsubmitted necessary returns for the assessment year 2012-13 and satisfied bythe tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected by way ofSurvey under Section 133(A) of the Act, the adjudication officer initiatedproceeding for re-assessment of the income and notice was issued underSection 148 of the Act, which made the writ petitioner/assessee to challenge itby filing writ petition. submitted necessary returns for the assessment year 2012-13 and satisfied bythe tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected by way ofSurvey under Section 133(A) of the Act, the adjudication officer initiatedproceeding for re-assessment of the income and notice was issued underSection 148 of the Act, which made the writ petitioner/assessee to challenge itby filing writ petition. 6.The nature of challenge was considered and after hearing both the sides, thelearned Single Judge observed that, it was a matter which could be effectivelychallenged by approaching the statutory authority. Accordingly, the writ petitionwas dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise to the present appeal. learned Single Judge observed that, it was a matter which could be effectivelychallenged by approaching the statutory authority. Accordingly, the writ petitionwas dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise to the present appeal. 7.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the relegation of the appellant tomove the statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, in respect of the disputedportion, the tax was already been paid by the appellant and this should havebeen properly looked into by the authorities and also by the learned SingleJudge. move the statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, in respect of the disputedportion, the tax was already been paid by the appellant and this should havebeen properly looked into by the authorities and also by the learned SingleJudge. 8.The learned standing counsel for the department of revenue submits that theversion of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more a question offact. After hearing, we are of the view that the matter involves some fact findingexercise and the same can be effectively prosecuted before the competentauthority under the statute, which cannot be a matter for discussion andfinalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India. version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more a question offact. After hearing, we are of the view that the matter involves some fact findingexercise and the same can be effectively prosecuted before the competentauthority under the statute, which cannot be a matter for discussion andfinalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India. 9.In the said circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, much less anyillegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the learned SingleJudge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However, we make itclear that we have not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case.It is always open for the appellant to establish the merit of the case before thestatutory authority, based on the facts and the relevant provisions of law. illegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the learned SingleJudge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However, we make itclear that we have not expressed anything with regard to the merit of the case.It is always open for the appellant to establish the merit of the case before thestatutory authority, based on the facts and the relevant provisions of law. 10.It is further made clear that the specific case projected by the appellant/writpetitioner that, he having satisfied the tax, it would be a case of 'double taxation'shall also be considered and specifically answered by the competent authoritywhile pursuing the proceedings as aforesaid. petitioner that, he having satisfied the tax, it would be a case of 'double taxation'shall also be considered and specifically answered by the competent authoritywhile pursuing the proceedings as aforesaid. Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon)(Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Chief Justice Judge