Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 passed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby ₹1,62,20,000 was added to her income.

The petitioner had filed her return declaring income of ₹39,76,435. Subsequently, a search under Section 132 was conducted on 15.12.2016 in the case of a third party (director of M/s Almina Textiles Pvt. Ltd.). During the search, it was revealed that a property at Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi had been sold to the petitioner for ₹2,61,70,000, of which ₹99,50,000 was paid through cheque and ₹1,62,20,000 allegedly in cash.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessment order under Section 153C was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
  2. Whether the petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations.
  3. Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised when statutory remedies are available.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner primarily argued that the assessment order was passed without granting sufficient opportunity to present her case. It was contended that the satisfaction note—forming the basis of proceedings—was supplied only on 19.04.2021 and the final order was passed on 22.04.2021, leaving inadequate time to respond.

She also alleged inordinate delay in initiating proceedings under Section 153C several years after the search, relying on precedents such as CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears and other judgments concerning timely recording of satisfaction.

Additionally, it was submitted that the writ petition was maintainable despite availability of alternate remedies because of violation of natural justice.

 Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to participate in the assessment process starting from December 2020. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued seeking details, but the petitioner failed to respond promptly.

It was further contended that the Assessing Officer duly considered the reply submitted on 21.04.2021 before passing the order and that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where effective appellate remedies exist.

Court Order / Findings

  • The record showed that the petitioner had been provided opportunities to respond from March 2021 onward, including show cause notices regarding the alleged cash payment.
  • A satisfaction note detailing incriminating material seized during search was furnished to the petitioner before passing the order.
  • The Assessing Officer considered the petitioner’s submissions before making the addition.
  • The Court rejected the argument that proceedings were initiated after an inordinate delay, noting that delay must be assessed on facts and complexity of investigation.
  • The case did not fall within exceptions permitting writ jurisdiction despite alternate remedies.

Important Clarification

The judgment reiterates that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of assessment proceedings does not justify invocation of writ jurisdiction. Courts will intervene only where there is demonstrable denial of fair hearing, jurisdictional error, or constitutional violation.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1772178431_SUNITAGOELVsDEPUTYCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCENTRALCIRCLE1DELHI.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.