Madhuri Sahai v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Central Circle-2,Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6730/2024 Madhuri Sahai W/o Shri Ram Mohan Sahai, aged about 88 years,R/o SP-15 Bhabha Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, 302004, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT Central Circle-2,Jaipur, having its Address at Room No. 410, 4[th] Floor, JeevanNidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan302005. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Jaipur, having its Address atSidhnath Bhawan, Jaipur Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal KothiScheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan,302015. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DCIT/ACIT, CentralCircle-2, Jaipur, having its Address at Room No. 410, 4[th] Floor,Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Hora Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate, Ms. Kriti Kalawatia Advocate and Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 22/07/2024 1.Heard. 2.This writ petition has been filed against assessment orderdated 21.03.2024 on the submission that the very initiation ofproceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was bad in law as theproceedings could not have been initiated under the scheme ofSection 153C of the Act as it stood prior to its deletion with effectfrom 01.04.2021. It is submitted that show cause notice wasissued, reply was filed, but proper opportunity of hearing was notafforded to the petitioner. 3.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,referring to order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Court in thecase of Smt. Rama Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9309/2024), would submit that incases where issuance of notice at the very inception was notchallenged but the assessee submitted to the jurisdiction of theauthority and sought to challenge only after the assessment orderwas passed, this Court has not exercised its discretion to entertainthe petition and allowed the parties to exhaust statutoryalternative remedy of appeal. 4.In the present case, on facts also, we find that notice underSection 153C of the Act was issued to the petitioner way back on12.01.2023. The petitioner did not challenge the initiation ofproceedings and submitted to the jurisdiction of the authoritiesand participated in the assessment proceedings. It is only whenthe assessment order is passed that the petitioner seeks tochallenge the same by filing present writ petition. The issue withregard to opportunity of hearing can also be examined by theauthorities concerned because it is not a case of total absence ofopportunity of hearing and the allegation is that properopportunity of hearing was not afforded. 5.In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise ourdiscretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to entertain this writ petition because there exists statutoryalternative efficacious remedy of appeal to challenge theassessment order. 6.Writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to thepetitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appealavailable to her under the law. 7.Taking into consideration that this writ petition was filedbefore expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal, it isdirected that in case, the petitioner prefers an appeal within 30days, the appeal shall be heard and decided by the AppellateAuthority on its own merits without going into the issue oflimitation. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI /19