KOTHARI METALS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the judgment and order dated December 11, 2014, passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 14670 of 2014 whereby the petition challenging the notice under Sec. 148 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The brief facts of this case are that for the assessment year 2006 -07 the appellant had filed its return of income, which was accepted under Sec. 143(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") on June 14, 2007. Subsequently, on March 28, 2013, notice under Sec. 148 of the Act was issued for reopening of the assessment. In response to the same, the appellant requested the respondent to treat the earlier return filed as the return filed in response to the notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act. The appellant also prayed for furnishing the reasons for issuance of notice under Sec. 148 of the Act. Even when no reason for the issuance of the notice was furnished to the appellant, the Assessing Officer commenced proceedings for reassessment of the income of the assessee -appellant for the said assessment year and issued questionnaire under Sec. 142(1) of the Act.

(2.) From the questionnaire issued to the assessee, it appears that reopening of the assessment was on the basis of the statement recorded by the income -tax authorities of some other person, which statement was never furnished to the appellant. The appellant, thus, contends that besides the non -furnishing of the reasons for reopening the assessment, the principles of natural justice were also not complied in the present case inasmuch as the appellant was not even furnished the statement, which was required to be explained by the appellant before the Assessing Officer.

(3.) Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, however, submitted that since the reassessment order has now been passed on January 31, 2014, the same can be challenged in appeal and, as such dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is perfectly justified.