|The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0203 (Ker-HC)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Sections 254(2) and 260A Article 226
Jurisdiction under Article 226 on the well-entrenched principle of self-restraint exercised in invoking the extraordinary remedy under article 226, when there was an appeal provided by the statute, which was an equally efficacious remedy.
Writ - Maintainability - Existence of alternative remedy of appeal - Recording of satisfaction under section 153C
It was the contention of assessee on the question of rectification, the Tribunal had refused to admit the additional ground for reason of non-production of evidence by the assessee. The additional ground raised was only with respect to the satisfaction required to be recorded under section 153C, which could have been verified on a perusal of the assessment records. There was no evidence, which could have been produced by the assessee and hence, the refusal to admit the additional ground was a mistake apparent from the face of the record and had to be rectified. Question arose in the appeal was whether threre could be an appeal filed under section 260A against the rejection of an application under section 254(2). If it was not permissible, then the writ petition would be maintainable, as had been found in the concurring judgment in Deeksha Suri and the next question would be whether the ground raised was a mistake, which could be rectified under section 254(2), to be answered in these proceedings under article 226 itself. Held: The question court is required to answer is as to whether an appeal would lie against an order rejecting a rectification application. Jurisdiction under article 226 on the well-entrenched principle of self-restraint exercised in invoking the extraordinary remedy under article 226, when there was an appeal provided by the statute, which was an equally efficacious remedy.
Relied:Chem Amit v. ACIT [(2005) 272 ITR 397 (Bom) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 969 (Bom-HC)], Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. v. ITAT & Anr. [(2010) 323 ITR 114 (Mad) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 800 (Mad-HC)], Madhav Marbles and Granites v. ITAT & Anr. [(2014) 362 ITR 647 (Raj) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 738 (Raj-HC)], L. Sohanraj v. Dy.CIT & Anr. [(2003) 260 ITR 147 (Karn-HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 46 (Karn-HC) and Deeksha Suri & Ors. v. ITAT & Ors. (1998) 232 ITR 395 (Del) : 1998 TaxPub(DT0 955 (Del-HC).
FAVOUR : Against assessee.
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT