R.savithri Naidu v. Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 15(4),Aayakar Bhawan, Wanapathy Building,Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAMW.P.No.3523 of 2018and W.M.P.Nos.4302 & 4303 of 2018and W.M.P.No.1457 of 2021 R.Savithri Naidu ..Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 15(4),Aayakar Bhawan, Wanapathy Building,Room No.207, 2[nd] Floor, No.121, N.H. Road,Chennai 600 034. ..Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, callingfor the records of the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 passedby the respondent against the petitioner for Assessment Year2015-16 bearing PAN NO. and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas (Senior Standing Counsel for IT) ORDER The original assessment order passed by the respondent inproceeding dated 29.12.2017 is under challenge in the presentWrit Petition. 2.The assessment order was passed for the Assessment Year2015-16. Admittedly, the order of original assessment is anappealable order, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When a questionis raised regarding this, the learned counsel for thepetitioner made a submission that the other connected WritPetitions filed by the sons of the writ petitioner herein in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.558, 563 and 566 of 2020 are pending before thisCourt. In those Writ Petitions, the sons of the writpetitioner has raised certain grounds regarding computation ofcapitals. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are to be taggedtogether for the purpose of common hearing. 3.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent objected the said contentions by statingthat those Writ Petitions filed by the sons of the writpetitioner are absolutely unconnected and not relatable to theoriginal assessment order passed by the competent authority inthe impugned proceeding dated 29.12.2017, in the present WritPetition. The orders challenged in those Writ Petitions filedby the sons of the writ petitioner are search assessmentorders passed under Section 153C of the Act. Further, severalother issues are also raised in those Writ Petitions in viewof the search assessment made in the premises of the sons ofthe petitioner herein. The learned Senior Standing Counselreiterated by stating that the grounds raised by thepetitioner are dealt with by the original Assessing Officer inthe impugned order and findings are also given. Thus, thepetitioner has to prefer an appeal, if he is aggrieved fromand out of the original assessment order. 4.This Court is of the considered opinion that perusal ofthe order impugned, same was issued under Section 143(3) ofthe Act with reference to the Assessment Year 2015-16.Admittedly, the order impugned is the original assessmentorder. Regarding the ground raised, computation of capitalgains, the respondent dealt with the merits with reference tothe taxes and made a finding, more specifically, in ParagraphNos.6, 6.1 and 7 of the assessment order. If at all thepetitioner is aggrieved from and out of the finding, it isleft open to him to prefer an appeal, as contemplated underthe statute. 5.Exhausting the appellate remedy contemplated under theAct is the rule. Dispensing with the appellate remedy is anexception. Only in the event of an imminency, threat orurgency or damages, which cannot be compensated, the HighCourt may entertain a Writ Petition by dispensing with theappellate remedy. In all other circumstances, exhausting theappellate remedy is of paramount importance for exercise ofpower of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. 6.The appellate authorities are the final fact findingauthorities. The High Court cannot conduct a roving enquirywith reference to the disputed facts, accounting details withreference to the documents and evidences. Such an exercise is 5.Exhausting the appellate remedy contemplated under theAct is the rule. Dispensing with the appellate remedy is anexception. Only in the event of an imminency, threat orurgency or damages, which cannot be compensated, the HighCourt may entertain a Writ Petition by dispensing with theappellate remedy. In all other circumstances, exhausting theappellate remedy is of paramount importance for exercise ofpower of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. 6.The appellate authorities are the final fact findingauthorities. The High Court cannot conduct a roving enquirywith reference to the disputed facts, accounting details withreference to the documents and evidences. Such an exercise is to be done by the original authority and omissions orcommissions or otherwise are to be looked into and consideredby the appellate authorities. Certain factual omissions andcommissions, if at all traced out in the original order, thesaid grounds may be raised by the respective parties forrectification or redressal of grievances. Thus, the litigantalso need not be deprived of the right of appeal for thepurpose of redressing the grievances. Thus, the finding of theappellate authority is of greater assistance for the HighCourt for effective adjudication of a Writ Petition byexercising the power of judicial review and for providingcomplete justice to the parties. 7.The power of judicial review of the High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize theprocesses, through which a decision is taken by the competentauthority by following the procedures as contemplated, but notthe decision itself. Therefore, the routine entertainment of aWrit Petition, by dispensing with appellate remedy, is notpreferable and such an exercise would cause injury to theinstitutional hierarchy and the importance attached to suchappellate institutions. The appellate institutions providedunder the statute, at no circumstances, be undermined by thehigher Courts. The appellate forums are the final fact findingauthorities and more so, possessing expertise in a particularfield. Thus, the finding of such appellate forums would be avaluable assistance for the purpose of exercise of judicialreview by the High Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 8.The point of delay may be an acceptable ground for thepurpose of entertaining a Writ Petition. The practise offiling the Writ Petition without exhausting the statutoryremedies are in ascending mode and such Writ Petitions arefiled with a view to avoid pre-deposits to be made instatutory appeals and on the ground that the appellateremedies are time consuming. 9.In view of the fact that the order under challenge inthe present Writ Petition is the original assessment orderpassed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the petitioner is atliberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority,namely the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), within aperiod of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. If any such appeal is received by the appellateauthority, the same shall be entertained by condoning thedelay, if any, and to be disposed of on merits and inaccordance with law and by affording opportunity to theparties concerned, as expeditiously as possible. 10.With these directions, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gsaToThe Income Tax Officer,Non Corporate Ward 15(4),Aayakar Bhawan, Wanapathy Building,Room No.207, 2[nd] Floor, No.121, N.H. Road,Chennai 600 034.+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.29100 W.P.No.3523 of 2018CP(CO)SB(26/07/2021)