Idicula Jacob v. The Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 336 of 2019 {Arising out of Order dated 05/04/2019 passed in Writ Petition(T) No. 238 of 2018 by thelearned Single Judge} 1. M/s Precision Engineering A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At HIG-14,SBVP Nagar, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Through ItsProprietor Idicula Jacob, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Shri Idicula Jacob, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh SBVP Nagar, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Through ItsProprietor Idicula Jacob, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Shri Idicula Jacob, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Idicula Jacob S/o Shri Idicula Aged About 65 Years R/o Hig-14, Sada Colony,Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ----Appellants VERSUS 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle- Korba, Office Of AssistantCommissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road,Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road,Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range- Korba, Office Of Joint CommissionerOf Income Tax, Range- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika, Road, Korba,Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Of Income Tax, Range- Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika, Road, Korba,Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. The Union Of India Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry OfFinance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. -------Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent-Revenue : Ms. Nausina Afreen Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, JudgeJudgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice. 29/07/2019 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is heard finally. 3. The correctnesses and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learnedSingle Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised asto re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is underchallenge in this appeal.Single Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised asto re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is underchallenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants as well asMs. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing the respondent-revenue.Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing the respondent-revenue. 3. The correctnesses and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learnedSingle Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised asto re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is underchallenge in this appeal.Single Judge declining interference with regard to the challenge raised asto re-assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is underchallenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants as well asMs. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing the respondent-revenue.Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing the respondent-revenue. 5. The sequence of events reveals that the appellant Proprietorship concernsubmitted necessary returns for the assessment year 2013-14 and satisfiedby the tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected byway of Survey under Section 133(A) of the Act, the adjudication officerinitiated proceeding for re-assessment of the income and notice was issuedunder Section 148 of the Act, which made the writ petitioner/assessee tochallenge it by filing writ petition. submitted necessary returns for the assessment year 2013-14 and satisfiedby the tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected byway of Survey under Section 133(A) of the Act, the adjudication officerinitiated proceeding for re-assessment of the income and notice was issuedunder Section 148 of the Act, which made the writ petitioner/assessee tochallenge it by filing writ petition. 6. The nature of challenge was considered and after hearing both the sides,the learned Single Judge observed that, it was a matter which could beeffectively challenged by approaching the statutory authority. Accordingly,the writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise tothe present appeal.the learned Single Judge observed that, it was a matter which could beeffectively challenged by approaching the statutory authority. Accordingly,the writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise tothe present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the relegation of theappellant to move the statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, inrespect of the disputed portion, the tax was already been paid by theappellant and this should have been properly looked into by the authoritiesand also by the learned Single Judge.appellant to move the statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, inrespect of the disputed portion, the tax was already been paid by theappellant and this should have been properly looked into by the authoritiesand also by the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned standing counsel for the department of revenue submits thatthe version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more athe version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more a question of fact. After hearing, we are of the view that the matter involvessome fact finding exercise and the same can be effectively prosecutedbefore the competent authority under the statute, which cannot be a matterfor discussion and finalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned standing counsel for the department of revenue submits thatthe version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more athe version of the assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more a question of fact. After hearing, we are of the view that the matter involvessome fact finding exercise and the same can be effectively prosecutedbefore the competent authority under the statute, which cannot be a matterfor discussion and finalization invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of thisCourt under Article 226 of 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 learnedSingle Judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However,we make it clear that we have not expressed anything with regard to themerit of the case. It is always open for the appellant to establish the meritof the case before the statutory authority, based on the facts and therelevant provisions of law.illegality, with regard to the course ordered to be pursued by the learnedSingle Judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However,we make it clear that we have not expressed anything with regard to themerit of the case. It is always open for the appellant to establish the meritof the case before the statutory authority, based on the facts and therelevant 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 'doubletaxation' shall also be considered and specifically answered by thecompetent authority while pursuing the proceedings as aforesaid.petitioner that, he having satisfied the tax, it would be a case of 'doubletaxation' shall also be considered and specifically answered by thecompetent authority while pursuing the proceedings as aforesaid. Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon)(Parth Prateem Sahu)Chief Justice JudgeChief Justice Judge