The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the assessee had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and could not simultaneously pursue a writ remedy.
However, the bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considered that the appeal had remained pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) since January 2020 and that the jurisdictional issue had subsequently been considered by the High Court in the assessee’s own case, the Court requested the CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within two months upon submission of the High Court’s order and an early hearing application.
Buy Now: Think Before You Pay Cash: 50+ Landmark Rulings on Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961
The assessee had already challenged the assessment order through the statutory appellate mechanism. The appeal had been pending before the CIT(A) since January 24, 2020. Before the High Court, the Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the assessee had already availed the statutory remedy and therefore could not simultaneously pursue a writ petition challenging the same assessment order.
The assessee, however, submitted that the present writ petition involved a jurisdictional issue. It was argued that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi, did not have jurisdiction to assess the petitioner.
Counsel for the assessee relied upon an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court dated May 8, 2024, passed in ITA No. 124/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 3777/2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 in the petitioner’s own case. According to the submission, the High Court had already held in the assessee’s favour on the question of jurisdiction.
The assessee contended that since the jurisdictional question had already been decided by the High Court in its own case, the availability of the statutory appellate remedy should not prevent it from invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the Court.
After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the assessee had already availed the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment order. In these circumstances, the Bench was not inclined to entertain the writ petition while the statutory appeal remained pending.
Thus, the High Court did not examine the substantive merits of the assessee’s challenge to the assessment order in the writ proceedings.
While declining to entertain the writ petition, the High Court took note of the prolonged pendency of the statutory appeal.
The Bench specifically recorded that the appeal had remained pending since January 2020. It also took note of the assessee’s submission that the jurisdictional issue had subsequently been addressed by the High Court in its May 8, 2024 judgment in the petitioner’s own case.
Against this backdrop, the Court requested the CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within two months, provided the petitioner places a certified copy of the present High Court order before the appellate authority along with an application seeking early hearing.
The direction provides a procedural route for the assessee to have its long-pending statutory appeal considered without the High Court itself bypassing the appellate mechanism.
The High Court further clarified that the petitioner would be free to place before the CIT(A) a copy of the earlier judgment dated May 8, 2024.
The appellate authority was directed to consider the jurisdictional issue as well as the other issues raised by the petitioner in the pending appeal.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and also disposed of all pending applications.
The Bench made it clear that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the petitioner’s contentions.
The Court stated that the CIT(A) would remain free to independently consider the petitioner’s submissions, including the applicability of the May 8, 2024 High Court judgment to the facts of the present case.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
