Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman And Raman Ltd.,Kumbakonam, Tanjore District And Others (Air 1952 Sc 192)Andassistant Commissioner Of State Tax And Others V.m/S.commercial Steel Ltd. (C.a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19557 OF 2021 PETITIONER: HOLY CROSS FORANE CHURCH CHERPUNKAL, CHERPUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE MR.THOMAS MATHEW ARAMPULICKAL. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMARSRI.P.J.ANILKUMARSMT.G.MINI(1748)SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SRI.JOB ABRAHAMSRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 3ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 20.09.2021, THE COURT ON 30.09.2021 DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19557 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a religious and charitable trust registered under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges Ext.P9 orderof assessment dated 12.08.2021 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Adv. A.Kumar has raisedvarious contentions assailing the order of assessment. The maincontention was that the expenditure incurred on construction of thebuilding, land development and construction of compound wall wereduly recorded in the books of accounts of the Trust and that withoutrelying upon the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court, which arein favour of the petitioner, the assessing officer has relied uponjudgments of other High Courts, that too, which have no relation tothe facts arising in the instant case. It was also argued that in relationto the sale of agricultural land, which falls outside the definition of acapital asset, the assessment order fails to consider the reply of thepetitioner and instead relies upon the letter of the Sub Registrar for W.P.(C) No.19557/21 -:4:- concluding the nature of the land, thereby rendering the entireassessment order as perverse. It is further argued that the issuerelating to addition of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was never the subjectmatter of notice nor in the proceedings for assessment has found itsway into the order of assessment, thereby vitiating the assessmentorder itself. On the aforesaid basis, it is contended by the learnedcounsel for petitioner that this is a fit case for invoking the jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.A.Kumaras well as Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents. 4. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner, I find that this is not a fit case toinvoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India after bypassing the statutory remediesavailable to the petitioner. The normal course of remedy open toevery assessee is to move the statutory appellate authorities, exceptin very limited and exceptional circumstances like a breach offundamental rights or violation of the principles of natural justice or ifthe order is passed in excess of jurisdiction or when there is a W.P.(C) No.19557/21 -:5:- challenge to the constitutionality of the statute in question. (See G.Veerappa Pillai Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman and Raman Ltd.,Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others (AIR 1952 SC 192)andAssistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v.M/s.Commercial Steel Ltd. (C.A. No.5121 of 2021). 5. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned W.P.(C) No.19557/21 -:5:- challenge to the constitutionality of the statute in question. (See G.Veerappa Pillai Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman and Raman Ltd.,Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others (AIR 1952 SC 192)andAssistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v.M/s.Commercial Steel Ltd. (C.A. No.5121 of 2021). 5. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the facts arising in the case, I amof the view that none of the circumstances mentioned above exists inthe instant case warranting interference under Article 226 of theConstitution of India and that the petitioner can be relegated to theremedy of statutory appeal. Hence this writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty ofthe petitioner to pursue appropriate statutory remedies. Sd/- vps BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE W.P.(C) No.19557/21 -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19557/2021 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUECOPYOFTHEREGISTRATIONCERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INCOME TAXAUTHORITIES DATED 12.02.1974.CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY INCOME TAXAUTHORITIES DATED 12.02.1974. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PAN CARD DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ITR RETURN FOR AY 2018-19 DATED 08.10.2018.19 DATED 08.10.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED08.10.2018.08.10.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCINGPAYMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL WORKERSWELFARE FUND BY PETITIONER. PAYMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL WORKERSWELFARE FUND BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(a)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCINGPAYMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL WORKERSWELFARE FUND BY PURCHASER LAND.PAYMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL WORKERSWELFARE FUND BY PURCHASER LAND. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDERDATED 23.04.2021.DATED 23.04.2021. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02.05.2021. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THEPURCHASER DATED NIL.PURCHASER DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED12.08.2021.12.08.2021. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED12.08.2021.12.08.2021. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE DATED12.08.2021.12.08.2021. EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED02.07.1987 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN 1988170 ITR 62 KER.02.07.1987 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN 1988170 ITR 62 KER. EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED12.02.2019 OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURTIN 310 CTR 483 (MAD.)12.02.2019 OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURTIN 310 CTR 483 (MAD.) W.P.(C) No.19557/21 EXHIBIT P14 -:7:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED09.08.1995 OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGHCOURT IN (2000) 162 CTR KAR 261.