Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, Supershine Laundry Systems Private
Limited, filed writ petitions challenging reassessment orders dated 20.03.2025
passed under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment
years. The petitioner assailed the reassessment proceedings on multiple
jurisdictional grounds, including non-compliance with the procedure under
Section 148A, lack of valid sanction under Section 151, and absence of
territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who issued the notice under
Section 148 and completed reassessment proceedings.
It was contended that the petitioner was assessed
in Gurugram, whereas the reassessment notices were issued by an Assessing
Officer in Delhi, without any order under Section 127 transferring
jurisdiction.
During the course of hearing, the Revenue produced
an order dated 17.12.2024 passed under Section 127 of the Act, whereby
assessments of multiple assessees, including the petitioner (at Serial No. 85),
were centralized and jurisdiction was conferred on the Assessing Officer who
had issued the impugned reassessment notices.
Issues
Involved
Whether the reassessment orders could be challenged
in writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was
available, whether the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction in absence of an
order under Section 127, and whether the High Court should entertain merits of
reassessment proceedings in such circumstances.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the reassessment
proceedings were wholly without jurisdiction as the mandatory procedure under
Section 148A was not followed, sanction under Section 151 was defective, and
the Assessing Officer in Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction. After the
Revenue produced the Section 127 order, the petitioner sought to challenge the
validity of the said order on the ground that no prior notice was issued and
that it proceeded on an incorrect assumption regarding the petitioner’s location.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue contended that the reassessment orders
could not be said to be wholly without jurisdiction since a valid order under
Section 127 had been passed prior to issuance of the reassessment notices,
conferring jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. It was further argued that
the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under the
Income-tax Act and the writ petitions were therefore not maintainable.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Delhi High Court noted that once the order
dated 17.12.2024 under Section 127 was produced, it could not be contended that
the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notices or
pass the reassessment orders. The Court observed that the petitioner had not
challenged the Section 127 order in the writ petitions and the grounds now
sought to be urged against the said order were beyond the pleadings.
The Court further held that since the petitioner
was also assailing the reassessment orders on merits, it was not appropriate
for the High Court to entertain the writ petitions in view of the availability
of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy under the Act.
Important
Clarification
The High Court clarified that dismissal of the writ
petitions would not preclude the petitioner from challenging the reassessment
orders on all grounds, including jurisdictional issues, before the appellate
authority. The Court also clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to
separately challenge the order passed under Section 127 in accordance with law.
Final
Outcome
The writ petitions were disposed of. The petitioner
was granted liberty to avail statutory appellate remedies against the
reassessment orders, and the time for filing such appeal was extended by two
weeks, with a direction that the appellate authority shall consider the appeal
without being influenced by the question of limitation. All rights and
contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.
Link to
download order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769756763_SUPERSHINELAUNDRYSYSTEMSPRIVATELIMITEDVsDEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXORS..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment