GIJO POOTHANAPRA MATHEWS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Appeal is instituted by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.3847/2020 challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 11.02.2020. The respondents herein are the respondents in the Writ Petition.

(2.) Ext.P9 order of assessment against the appellant finalised by the 2nd respondent with respect to the assessment year 2017-18 was under challenge in the Writ Petition. This court was approached without availing the remedy of statutory appeal available before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), by contending that the assessment was finalised after expiry of the period of limitation stipulated in the Income-tax Act . Inter alia, it was contended that, while finalising the assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded, apart from issuing specific show cause notice. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents contended that all the above points can be agitated in a properly constituted appeal before the Appellate Authority and that there exists no exceptional circumstances warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge, after considering all the rival contentions, observed that there is no material available to arrive at a conclusion that the assessee had submitted returns as well as given proper reply to the notice, as contended. However, it was observed that, all such disputed points can very well be urged in a statutory appeal. Therefore the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge, the above Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) The appellant contended that the impugned assessment is unsustainable, because it was not communicated within the time limit stipulated. Before this court, the respondents had produced certain additional documents in support of their contention that the assessment was actually finalised within the time limit stipulated and it was uploaded in the system. The appellant is disputing even such a contention. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ground raised for assailing the assessment, based on the question of limitation can also be agitated before the Appellate Authority. This is especially because, in order to arrive at a conclusion on the disputed factual aspects relating to the said ground, an evaluation of materials and evidence may become absolutely necessary. Therefore we are of the opinion that, interference with the judgment of the Single Judge, relegating the appellant to the appellate remedy, cannot in any manner be termed as illegal, erroneous or improper.