M/S RAJ SHEELA GROWTH FUND PVT LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21 (1) DELHI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily because the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the CIT(A). However, considering that the appeal had been pending since February 2019 and acknowledging the petitioner's claim that the jurisdictional aspect had been settled by this Court's judgment dated 08.05.2024, the Court requested the CIT(A) to decide the petitioner's appeal within two months. The petitioner was advised to furnish a certified copy of the High Court's order and the judgment dated 08.05.2024 to the CIT(A) to facilitate an early decision on all issues, including jurisdiction. The Court explicitly stated that it had not pronounced on the merits of the petitioner's contentions and that the CIT(A) was free to take an independent view regarding the applicability of the previous judgment to the present facts. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) on 07.02.2019. The petitioner argued that the High Court had previously held in their favor regarding the respondent's lack of jurisdiction in a judgment dated 08.05.2024 concerning Assessment Year 2016-17. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory remedy and the simultaneous pursuit of two remedies.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether a previous judgment of the High Court in the petitioner's own case, concerning jurisdictional aspects, overrides the statutory remedy of appeal? Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioner argued that the High Court has already ruled in their favor on the jurisdictional issue in a previous judgment dated 08.05.2024 in their own case (ITA 124/2020 and W.P.(C) 3777/2022 for AY 2016-17). - They contended that when there is a direct judgment in their favor on jurisdiction, the statutory remedy of appeal should not prevent them from invoking the writ jurisdiction, as their constitutional and statutory rights have been infringed. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the CIT(A) and is pursuing two remedies simultaneously.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).
Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition impugns an assessment order which was passed way back on 28.12.2018, and that too when the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy of appeal. While W.P.(C) 13739/2026
highlighting that such appeal is pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) since 07.02.2019, he argued that in any event, the assessee cannot avail or pursue two remedies simultaneously.
At this point of time, Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court on the issue of juri iction, that too when this Court has already held in petitioner’s favour that the respondent-Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi does not have juri iction to assess the petitioner.
He invited Court’s attention towards the judgment dated 08.05.2024 delivered in ITA 124/2020 and W.P.(C) 3777/2022 (Annexure P-9) for Assessment Year 2016-17 passed in petitioner’s own case and argued that when there is a direct judgment of this Court in petitioner’s own case, the statutory remedy of appeal should not come in petitioner’s way of invoking writ juri iction of this Court. Because, petitioner’s constitutional rights so also statutory rights have been infringed by the arbitrary action of the respondent.
Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, considering that the petitioner’s appeal is pending since February 2019 and as claimed by the petitioner, the issue on juri ictional aspect has been set at rest by this Court, vide its judgment dated 08.05.2024, we request the CIT(A) to decide petitioner’s appeal within a period of two months, in case the petitioner places a certified copy of the instant order before the Appellant Authority alongwith an early hearing application. W.P.(C) 13739/2026
The petitioner shall be free to place a copy of the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court before CIT(A) also, so that he can decide the appeal on the issue of juri iction as well as the other issues which the petitioner has canvassed before him.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Needless to observe that we have not pronounced upon the merits or otherwise of the petitioner’s contentions. The CIT(A) will be free to take an independent view of the petitioner’s contentions in so far as the applicability of the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court on the extant facts is concerned.
(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE
(RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 18, 2026/sid
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
