Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged assessment orders passed under Section
153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Delhi High Court through
multiple writ petitions. During the hearing, it was admitted that the
petitioner had already preferred statutory appeals against the same assessment
orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were
passed hurriedly within nine days without granting sufficient opportunity,
thereby violating principles of natural justice. The tax demand raised under
the impugned orders was approximately ₹18–19 crores. Earlier, the Court had
granted interim protection restraining coercive recovery measures.
Issues Involved
- Whether
a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when statutory appellate
remedy has already been availed?
- Whether
assessment proceedings under Section 153A could be challenged directly in
writ jurisdiction on grounds of violation of natural justice?
- Whether
interim protection against tax recovery should continue pending statutory
appellate proceedings?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
assessment order passed under Section 153A was legally unsustainable.
- Adequate
and effective opportunity of hearing was not granted.
- The
assessment was finalized within an unreasonably short period of nine days.
- Such
hurried assessment violated principles of natural justice.
- The
tax demand was substantial and immediate recovery would cause severe
hardship.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
petitioner had already exercised the statutory appellate remedy.
- Once
appeal was filed, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked simultaneously
against the same order.
- All
factual and legal contentions could be raised before the appellate
authority.
- The
Revenue contested the allegations regarding denial of fair opportunity.
Court Findings / Observations
The Delhi High Court observed that where an effective
alternative statutory remedy exists and has already been invoked, writ
jurisdiction ordinarily should not be exercised.
The Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to
pursue parallel remedies challenging the same assessment order.
The Court clarified that all grounds, including violation of
natural justice and lack of fair hearing, could be raised before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who was competent to adjudicate upon
them.
The Court emphasized that merits of the additions were matters suitable for appellate examination rather than writ adjudication.
Court Order
- The
writ petitions were disposed of.
- The
Court declined to entertain the writ petitions.
- Interim
protection against coercive recovery was extended for five weeks.
- Liberty
was granted to the petitioner to seek stay before the appellate authority.
- If aggrieved by any stay-related order, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge it in accordance with law.
Important Clarification
The High Court expressly clarified that it had not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessment order or additions made
therein, and all issues remained open before the appellate authority.
This judgment reinforces the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and generally not invoked where statutory remedies are available and already pursued.
Sections Involved
- Section
153A, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Assessment in case of
search or requisition
- Article
226, Constitution of India – Writ Jurisdiction
- Principles
of Natural Justice
- Statutory
Appellate Remedy under Income Tax Law
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2018:DHC:9138-DB/SKN21022018CW6462017_170706.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment