Mumbai v. Jet Airways

Petrtion under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of certiorari to declare the proceedings of the 4th respondent in initiating Assessment under Section 147 and 148 of the lncOme Tax Act through the order' dt.1g.O3.2o24 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and the consequential Assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent, dt.12.O3.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances statecj in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Assessment Order passed by the 3rd respondent herein, dt.12.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 against the petitioner under Section 147 rlw 144-B of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. IA NO: 30 F 202s petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the Additional Material Papers vide Notice issued by the 4th Respondent vide DIN & Notice No:ITBA/AST/Fl 148A12023-24/1062965189(1) pending disposal of the main Writ Petition' Counset for the Petitioner: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, M,/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Solicitor General of lndia SENIOR SC FOR IDT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURAB LE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURA BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NA]\IDIKONDA WRIT PETTTION N0.12275 of2025 ORDER : (per the lton bte Sri Justice p Sant Koshy) Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, Ieamed Senior Counsel, representing Ms. vedula chitralekha, reamed counser on record for the petitioner, and Ms' Bokaro sapna Reddy, leamed Senior Standing counsel for Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 td'4. 2- The instant writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the initiation of the assessment proceedings by respondent No.4 under Section r47 and, l4g of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shorr, 'the Act') tkough the order dated 19.03.2024, and the consequential assessment order dated 12.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 pertaining to assessment year 20l7-lg.

3. Learned Senior counser for the petitioner has been primarily assailing the initiation of proceedings and the consequentiar order on the ground that the assessment order has been passed taking into consideration the materials beyond the show-cause notices.

4. In the course of arguments, the leamed Senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the contents of the impugned assessment order for the Assessment ,/ / Year 2017-18 and contended that the summary and information provided in the show-cause notices and the transactions reflected therein are to be within the contents ofthe show-cause notices which were issued to the petitioner and, thus, the assessment order being beyond the contents of the show-cause notices ts per se bad and illegal

5. According to the learned Senio'r Counsel for the petitioner, the details of atleged escaped income as passed under Section l48A of the Act is entirely different from details of the unexplained cash credits as shown in the assessment order dated 12.03.2025 and, therefore, the impugned order ts unsustainable and liable to be interdicted under the Writ j urisdiction of thrs Court. According to the leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner, before passing an order under Section 147 of the Act, a notice has to be issued under Section 148 and Section 148A calling upon the assessee to provide inforrnation in respect ofthe income chargeable to tax and which has escaped assessment.

6. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the assessee needs to be issued with a notice giving a clear thirty (30) days period to provide necessary information in respect of the income chargeable to tax and whicn# escaped assessment. It was also the contention of the leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the Income Tax Department has not taken proper prior approval from the specified authority as \ is required under Section 15 1 of the Act' According to the leamed Senior Counsel it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General,orwhenthereisnoPrincipalChiefCommissionerorthePrincipal Director General, the Chief Commissioner or the Director General shall be the specihed authority in the event if the proceedings have been initiated beyond a period of three (03) years from the end of the relevant assessment year' [n view of the aforesaid lacunas, leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner 7. insisted for the writ petition to be entertained even though there is a statutory remedy of appeal available under the Act'

8. On the other hand' leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, opposing the writ petition, contended that the very same assessee hadrecentlyfiledyetanotherwritpetitionvideWritPetitionNo.12365of2025 before this Bench itself challenging another assessment order wherein also similargroundswereraisedandthisBenchhasdismissedthesaidwritpetition reserving the right ofthe petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the Act vide order dated24-04'2025' The leamed Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department further referred to the impugned order and contended that there werenumerousnoticesissuedtothepetitioneronrepeatedoccasionsandin spiteofrepeatednoticesbeingissued,thepetitionerdidnotthinkitproperto respondtoa4y-qflhgsenoticesandsubmitwhatevercontention/objectionor t .//r/ submission that he wanted to make pertaining to the show-cause notices and, in the absence of anY proper response or reply on behalf of the petitioner, the Department was left with no other option, but to proceed lurther and pass the assessment order. g. According to the leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, given the fact that the imptgned order has been passed after proper issuance and service of notice to the petitioner,, there is hardly any scope left for this Bench to enteftain the writ petition particularly when the petitioner has a staturory remedy of appeal. According to the leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, the petitioner can raise all these grounds which he has raised in this writ petition itself before the Appellate Authority and, which if raised, shall be duly considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with Iaw. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, and if we peruse the series of notices which were issued, it would reveal that in one or the other notice the Department did refer to the details of certain transactions showing the income which the assessee had escaped assessment. Further, perusal of the pleadings and the averments made would further go to show that it is not a case where the petitioner is disputing that he had not received notice from the Department at all. More importantly, leamed \ Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give even one justifiable ground of having not responded to the show-cause notices received by them.

11. Though the leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax-5, Mumbai vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. t , highlighting the aspect that a writ petition can be entertained under similar circumstances, however a perusal of facts in the instant case and, the factual matrix under which the said jud.gment was passed is in an entirely different contextual backdrop unlike the facts in the instant case. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner in the instant case are grounds which are very much available to him while availing the statutory remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act itself. Hence, the said judgment is distinguishable on its own facts. L2. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and there being sufficient material that the petitioner had received the notice issued by the Depaftment and had chosen not to contest the case before the Competent Authority by responding to the show-cause notices and now the final assessment order having also passed, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for the High Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India testing the veracity of the order passed by ( ( '1zott1 33t rtR z:o (Bombay) '+ I I respondent No.3. These very grounds which the petitioner has raised can also be raised by him before the Appellate Authority and which the Appellate Authority shall consider strictly in accordance with law.

13. The Bench also stands persuaded with the previous order passed in respect of another assessment year which was challenged by the very same petitioner vide Writ Petition No.12365 of 2025 decided on 24.04.2025 which we had dismissed permitting the petitioner to avail statutory remedy available to him under the Act.

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving the right of petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the Act.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA PUry REGISTRAR D SECTION OFFICER One CC to M/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA , Advoca One CC to SRt GADI pRAVEEN KUMAR, Deputy So lndia Advocate loPUCl One CC to IV/s BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR Two CD Copies loPUCl licitor General of sc FoR tTD toPUCl lfr- To 1 ? 4 PSK. GJP I r":irllr&{ti i,..i$. HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 310612025 ORDER WP.No.12275 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0* u z) 6 ) i 11 AUC zffi l'4T i: .ir ^ i ', \i-' ) ,r' ==-