Income Tax Case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S.WATER WORLD TOURISM COMPANY PVT. LTD.MUNICIPAL BOAT JETTY, ALAPPUZHA-688 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, TOBY CHANDY.BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE -1, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.CIRCLE -1, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-100001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2021, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.22618 of 2021 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22[nd] day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act,1961. Petitioner challenges the assessment orderdated 17.09.2021 issued by the 3[rd] respondentassessing authority. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner forinvoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article226 of the Constitution of India is that the assessingauthority failed to consider the binding judgment ofthe Bombay High Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax v. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf[1978] 113 ITR 589.According to the petitioner, failure to consider abinding judgment is a sufficient cause for invokingthe remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia and that the reasoning of the assessing authority for ignoring the said judgment was itselfperverse.perverse. 3. I have heard the arguments of Adv.HarisankarV.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner asV.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.Jose Joseph, the learned StandingCounsel for the contesting respondents.Counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. The remedy of a person aggrieved by an order ofassessment is to prefer an appeal in accordance withthe statutory scheme. The scope of interference bythis Court under Article 226 is very limited. Thejurisdiction under Article 226 can invoked only inexceptional circumstances; like violation of theprinciples of natural justice, acting in excess ofjurisdiction, or when there is a challenge to theconstitutional validity of provisions and breach offundamental rights (see judgment inAssistantCommissioner of State Tax and others v. CommercialSteel Limited[(2021) SCC online SC 884]. None ofassessment is to prefer an appeal in accordance withthe statutory scheme. The scope of interference bythis Court under Article 226 is very limited. Thejurisdiction under Article 226 can invoked only inexceptional circumstances; like violation of theprinciples of natural justice, acting in excess ofjurisdiction, or when there is a challenge to theconstitutional validity of provisions and breach offundamental rights (see judgment inAssistantCommissioner of State Tax and others v. CommercialSteel Limited[(2021) SCC online SC 884]. None of WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 4 the circumstances mentioned above exists in theinstant case.instant case. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to consider the bindingdecision rendered by the Bombay High Court is itselfdecision rendered by the Bombay High Court is itself is a ground that can be raised by the petitionerbefore the appellate authority. before the appellate authority. 6. Challenge against the order of assessment requires an appreciation of facts, that too, when there aredisputed facts, as in the present case. disputed facts, as in the present case. WP(C) NO. 22618 OF 2021 4 the circumstances mentioned above exists in theinstant case.instant case. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that failure to consider the bindingdecision rendered by the Bombay High Court is itselfdecision rendered by the Bombay High Court is itself is a ground that can be raised by the petitionerbefore the appellate authority. before the appellate authority. 6. Challenge against the order of assessment requires an appreciation of facts, that too, when there aredisputed facts, as in the present case. disputed facts, as in the present case. 7. In such circumstances, there is no reason to exercisethe extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is,therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is atliberty to pursue his statutory remedies inaccordance with law.therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner is atliberty to pursue his statutory remedies inaccordance with law. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22618/2021