A. Jesu Rajendran vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

Challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 10.10.2014 passed in W.P.No. 9988 of 2014.

The appellant has preferred the writ petition, questioning the legality and validity of the assessment order dated 12.03.2014 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2007-08 in PAN No. ACQPJ5627E as being violative of the petitioner''s constitutional rights. It is further prayed to drop any proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The learned Single Judge, having considered the provisions of law and facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has statutory appellate remedy to take recourse to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals III) under Section 246 of the Act. Thus, the writ court declined to interfere with the impugned order, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate forum within a period of thirty days and further observing that the appeal would not be rejected on the ground of limitation, if any.

The writ petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred the instant appeal against the said order of the writ court solely on the ground that the alternative statutory remedy before the Commissioner is not efficacious as under the modified provisions, the appellate Commissioner has no power to remit the matter to the assessing officer for the purpose of assessing the capital asset by referring the same to the valuation officer.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals), while exercising power under Section 251(1) has powers to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but not to remit the matter back to the assessing officer for assessing the value of the capital asset. Under Section 50C(2), the Assessing Officer, while assessing the value of the capital asset, is required to refer the matter to the valuation officer. Thus, for want of aforestated power of remitting back the matter for proper valuation of capital asset, the appeal remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not efficacious.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), while examining the matter in appeal, in exercise of the powers, may refer the matter for valuation.

We have examined the legal provisions and facts carefully. We are also of the view that the contention of the counsel for the department merit acceptance. The Commissioner, while examining the assessment order under the provisions of Section 251 of the Act in an appeal, may refer the matter to the valuation officer, if necessary, for the purpose of valuation of capital asset, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is not efficacious. The remedy of appeal before the Commissioner is statutory, efficacious and expeditious and the same cannot be brushed aside for the reasons pleaded by the appellant.

Resultantly, we dismiss the appeal. However, we grant further thirty days time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to prefer the statutory appeal before the appropriate authority, if so advised. Further, we make it clear that in that event, the ground of limitation may not be considered by the appellate authority. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.