M/S BUCHI OPERATIONS INDIA PVT.LTD.M/S BUCHI OPERATIONS INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The assessee, M/s Buchi Operations India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated December 20, 2018, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The assessee also challenged consequential demand notices and penalty proceedings. The assessee had filed an online appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on January 30, 2019, with a delay of 5 days, for which an application for condonation was also filed. The assessee also informed the respondent to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance pending the appeal. The High Court noted that a statutory appeal under Section 246A had already been preferred and was pending.

Held

The High Court held that it should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction by bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal available to the assessee. The court found that all contentions raised by the assessee could be examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in its appellate jurisdiction. The court was not satisfied that the facts and circumstances warranted the exercise of writ jurisdiction, allowing the assessee to bypass the statutory appeal. The writ petition was rejected on the ground of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which had already been preferred and was pending. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide the appeal on its own merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available and has been availed by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the writ application should be entertained because the impugned order was ex-facie without jurisdiction, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and ultra vires Section 10AA of the Act. The assessee contended that the statutory remedy was not efficacious for the grounds raised. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. However, the revenue was represented, and the court considered the matter.