WA.No.790 of 2020 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 21.9.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Writ Appeal No.790 of 2020 & CMP.No.10344 of 2020 Jaganmohan Appellant Vs 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-34. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai-34. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai-34. ...Respondents APPEAL under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order in W.P.No.3625 of 2019 dated 07.11.2019. For Appellant: Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao For Respondents : Mr.Prabu Mukund Arunkumar for Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, SSC Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel for 1/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 appellant and Mr.Prabu Mukund Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for respondents. 2. This writ appeal, filed by appellant writ petitioner, is directed against order dated 07.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.3625 of 2019. 3. said writ petition was filed by appellant challenging order of assessment passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act (for short, Act) for assessment year 2011-12. 4. appellant contended before learned Single Judge that notice under Section 148 of Act was not served on appellant and therefore, entire proceedings were vitiated. 5. Revenue resisted said plea by contending that notice was dispatched to appellant writ petitioner on 29.3.2018 from Teynampet Post Office through speed post and that appellant could not contend that notice under Section 148 of Act was not 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 issued. Revenue also produced proof before learned Single Judge in support of their contention. 6. However, learned Single Judge dismissed said writ petition by observing that appellant could not canvass merits of assessment before Writ Court without filing regular appeal. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of matter, said writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to appellant to file appeal before concerned Authority within period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of said order. It was also made clear that on such filing of appeal, same should be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law without reference to period of limitation. 7. Before us, learned counsel for appellant has assailed correctness of assessment order reiterating stand taken before learned Single Judge that though appellant had been repeatedly seeking to furnish copy of alleged acknowledgment card, same was never furnished to appellant and that none of letters written by appellant was replied by Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that appellant raised query under 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 Right to Information Act. However, Department stated that record was not available. It is also submitted that no credibility can be attached to stand taken by Department before learned Single Judge. 8. Per contra, Mr.Prabu Mukund Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepting notice for respondents submits that notice was served in accordance with procedure laid down under Act, that similar issue was considered by one of us (TSSJ), while sitting singly, in decision in case of Abab Offshore Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle I(1), Chennai [reported in (2017) 78 Taxmann.com 37 (Madras)] and that learned Single Judge was right in rejecting relief sought in said writ petition. 9. After elaborately hearing learned counsel for parties, we are of considered view that learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing said writ petition, as appellant has got effective alternate remedy by way of appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerned. Income Tax 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 Act, 1961, being physical Statute, has provided for hierarchy of remedies under that and there is no justification for assessee to bypass such appellate remedy. point canvassed before us as well as before learned Single Judge is not pure question of law, but pure question of fact with limits of law involved in it. Therefore, if facts are in dispute, it is but appropriate for appellant assessee to avail alternate remedy provided under Act, as Appellate Authority is entitled to re-appreciate facts, call for records and then take decision. 10. Income Tax Act, 1961 also provides for further remedy to aggrieved party by way of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and another remedy by way of appeal before Division Bench of this Court under Section 260A of Act if substantial question of law is to be decided in matter. On going through facts as set out in said writ petition, we find that there is no ground for appellant to bypass appellate remedy. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Revenue has referred to decision rendered by one of us (TSSJ), while sitting singly, in case of Abab Offshore Ltd., we refrain from expressing anything on merits of matter, as we are inclined to 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 confirm order passed by learned Single Judge, who had dismissed said writ petition at threshold on account of availability of alternate remedy. 11. For all above reasons, writ appeal is dismissed, order dated 07.11.2019 passed in said writ petition is confirmed and appellant is directed to file appeal before concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within period of 30 days from date of receipt of copy of this judgment and if same is done, concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is requested to entertain appeal without reference to question of limitation and take decision on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. 21.9.2020 To 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-34. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai-34. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai-34. RS 6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.790 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS W.A.No.790 of 2020 & CMP.No.10344 of 2020 21.9.2020 7/7 http://www.judis.nic.in Jaganmohan v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai / Income-tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-3, Chennai