Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

ORDER SHEETWPO/1839/2022IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITEDVSADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX BEFORE:The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDINDate : 13[th] April, 2022. Appearance:Mr. Somak Basu, Adv.…For the PetitionerMr. Tilok Mitra, Adv.…For the U.O.I. The Court : Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties.In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned showcause notice dated 23[rd] March, 2022, giving opportunity to thepetitioner to file any objection to the draft assessment order beforepassing final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 in order to give effect to the order passed by theCommissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act dated 4[th]March, 2021 and the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity. Ithas also filed a supplementary affidavit challenging the impugnedfinal assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 30[th] March, 2022which has been passed during the pendency of the writ petition. Theimpugned assessment order dated 30[th] March, 2022 which has beenchallenged by way of supplementary affidavit is an appealable orderbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It also appears that the aforesaid impugned order dated 30[th] March, 2022 was passedafter following due procedure of law by issuance of notice and givingopportunity of hearing from time to time to the petitioner and it hasbeen recorded in the assessment order that petitioner’s reply dated18[th] February, 2022 was also taken into consideration. It has beenspecifically recorded in the assessment order that a letter was issuedon the petitioner on 19[th] January, 2022 but no reply was filed by thepetitioner and further a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act wasissued to the petitioner on 15[th] February, 2022 requiring it reply on orbefore 20[th] February, 2022. So, this cannot be a case of violation of principles of naturaljustice and petitioner has participated in the assessment proceedingand now when it has gone against him he wants to challenge theassessment order before this Writ Court and want this Court to act asan appellate authority by going into the merit of the assessment whichis the job of the CIT (Appeal). This is not that categories of cases where the proceeding hasbeen initiated by an officer having inherent lack of jurisdiction since inthis case assessing officer being subordinate to the Commissioner isbound to give effect to the order by his higher authority which is theCommissioner of Income Tax who had passed order under Section 263of the Act which is not even subject matter of challenge before thisCourt. Considering these facts, I am not inclined to entertain this writpetition and the same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merit of the assessment only on the ground of availability of thealternative remedy. This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- uponMr. Somak Basu, learned Advocate because of his rude behavior inCourt and addressing to the chair in highly disrespectful manner. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/