Point of Law: Income tax - reopening of the assessment of the assessee under Section 147, whereas the present case arises out of the proceedings initiated and the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating the proceedings under section 153C of the said Act, nonetheless such reliance of the decision of Supreme Court by the respondent could not be said to be out of place when the matter was concerning about the reopening of the assessment of the petitioner-assessee.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the impugned notice dated 31.03.2019 (Annexure A) issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) the preliminary order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the respondent rejecting the objections of the petitioner (Annexure D) and the order dated 30.10.2019 passed again rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner (Annexure F).

2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had received a notice dated 31.03.2019 issued under section 153C of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to prepare true and correct return of his total income for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the prescribed form and manner under the Act. The petitioner therefore filed a return of income on 17.09.2019 in response of the said notice. The petitioner thereafter received the notice dated 23.09.2019 issued under section 142(1) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to furnish the accounts and documents specified in the Annexure in connection with the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. Along with the said notice dated 23.09.2019, the petitioner also received a certified copy of the reasons recorded in the proceedings under section 153C of the said Act for the assessment year 2012-13 in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections (Annexure C) against the said satisfaction note, which objections came to be disposed of by the respondent vide the order dated 10.10.2019 (Annexure D). The petitioner filed further objections (Annexure E) on 17.10.2019, which also came to be rejected by the respondent vide the order dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure F).

3. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for the respondent at the outset challenging the very maintainability of the petition, has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani, (2013) 357 ITR 713 (SC) and submitted that the Court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of notice under section 153C of the said Act, and more particularly when the objections raised by the petitioner have been duly considered by the Assessing Officer. According to him, after the disposal of the objections, the Assessing Officer is required to pass an order of assessment, and if that order goes against the assessee, he could exhaust the remedy under the Act. Such petition at this juncture is also not maintainable in view of the settled legal position that when the alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved party, it must first exhaust the same before approaching the Writ Court. However, the learned advocate Mr. D.R. Patel for the petitioner would submit that existence of alternative remedy itself would not be a bar against entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the impugned order is without jurisdiction or is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. In the opinion of the Court, there cannot be any disagreement with the proposition of law canvassed by Mr. D.R. Patel for the petitioner, however, in the instant case, the objections raised by the petitioner against the satisfaction note were considered by the respondent vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 and the further objections raised by the petitioner also came to be considered and rejected by the respondent vide the order dated 30.10.2019. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the impugned notice and the impugned orders were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The question of jurisdiction was also not raised by the petitioner in the objections raised twice before the respondent. Mr. Patel had also failed to make out any case as to how the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. Therefore, the proper course wo