M. Pirai Choodi v. The Income Tax Officer Business Ward Ii(2) Chennai 600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.2.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Writ Appeal No.827 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 2007 M. Pirai Choodi.. Appellantvs. The Income Tax OfficerBusiness Ward II(2)Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against theorder dated 21.2.2007 made in Writ Petition No.3247 of 2007. Thewrit petition presented under article 226 of the constitution ofIndia for the issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the recordsof the respondent in his proceedings in PAN/GIR No AJUPM 5867C dated29.12.2006 relation to the assessment year 2004 – 2005 and quash thesame. For Appellant : Mr.T.AyyasamyFor Respondent : Mr.Naresh Kumar Jr. Standing Counsel------- JUDGMENT (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the above writappeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.2.2007made in Writ Petition No.3247 of 2007, where the learned Judgerefused to quash the assessment order dated 29.12.2006 for theassessment year 2004-2005 made under 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, onthe ground that the writ petitioner has got an alternative remedy toprefer a statuary appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. It is general rule that it may not be proper to entertain thewrit petitions when effective alternative remedy by way of statutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeal is available vide Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and anothervs. State of Orissa (53 STC 315, Ashok Leyland Limited vs. Union ofIndia and others [(1997) 105 STC 152] and State of Goa and others vs.Leuko Plast (India) Ltd. (105 STC 318). But, the above general ruleis subject to exceptions as laid by the Apex Court in HarbanslalSahnia vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [(2003) 2 SCC 107], where theApex Court has held that in spite of availability of the alternativeremedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in atleast three contingencies: viz., (1) where the writ petition seeksenforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there isfailure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the ordersor proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Actis challenged. 3. The present case rightly attracts the second exception viz.,the failure of principles of natural justice in the sense that therespondent-department refused to admit the agricultural income ofRs.11,32,232.42 for the assessment year 2004-05 of the writpetitioner/appellant (assessee) by placing reliance on the statementof the Village Administrative Officer, overlooking the materialsfurnished by the assessee to substantiate his agricultural activity,viz., (1) Chitta Adangal for the relevant periods, (2) Proof forpurchase of agricultural inputs and sale of agricultural products,(3) Year-wise chart showing the expenses incurred for theagricultural activities, (4) Application capital in the crops/herband (5) Books of Accounts for the business activities for relevantperiod. 4. According to the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee, in spiteof the documentary evidence furnished to substantiate theagricultural income to the tune of Rs.11,32,232.42 for the assessmentyear 2004-05, the respondent/assessing authority had chosen tooverlook the same and refused to admit the said agricultural incomefor the assessment year 2004-05 merely based on a statement allegedto have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer behindthe appellant/writ petitioner/assessee. 4. According to the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee, in spiteof the documentary evidence furnished to substantiate theagricultural income to the tune of Rs.11,32,232.42 for the assessmentyear 2004-05, the respondent/assessing authority had chosen tooverlook the same and refused to admit the said agricultural incomefor the assessment year 2004-05 merely based on a statement allegedto have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer behindthe appellant/writ petitioner/assessee. 5. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee was notpresent when the statement of the Village Administrative Officer wasobtained by the assessing authority. We find some force in thecontention of the appellant/writ petitioner/assessee that such astatement obtained from the Village Administrative Officer behind theappellant/writ petitioner/assessee depriving him an opportunity tocross-examine the Village Administrative Officer would amount toviolation of principles of natural justice and therefore, wouldvitiate the assessment order. 6. Hence, we are satisfied that there is a glaring violation tothe principles of natural justice apparent on the face of therecords, which fact was not, in our considered opinion, properly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appreciated by the learned single Judge while dismissing the writpetition on the ground of alternative remedy. Accordingly, the writappeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is setaside. Consequently, the impugned assessment order is quashed. Nocosts. Connected M.P.No.1/2007 is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarATRToThe Income Tax OfficerBusiness Ward II(2)Chennai 600 034.+1cc Mrs. Pushya sitaraman SSC (IT) SR.No.5778 W.A.No.827 of 2007RS gkg/21.2