PATNA HIGHWAY PROJECTS LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 19

Facts

The petitioner, Patna Highway Projects Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, Income Tax Department, represented by the Assistant Commissioner Circle 19, raised a preliminary objection. The respondent argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the order under challenge and that there were no special circumstances warranting the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court considered this preliminary objection.

Held

The High Court sustained the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. The Court held that the petitioner had approached the High Court against an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against such an order, a statutory appeal lies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court found no special circumstances presented by the petitioner to justify bypassing the available statutory remedy and invoking the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer a statutory appeal within one month from the date of the order. If such an appeal was filed within the stipulated period, it would be entertained and considered on its merits without any objection regarding limitation, as the petitioner was bona fide pursuing its remedy through the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or why the statutory remedy was not pursued. The petitioner's counsel appeared, but their arguments on this specific point are not detailed. Revenue's Contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner had approached the High Court against an order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for which an appeal lies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the respondent argued that there was no special circumstance justifying the invocation of the writ jurisdiction, and the statutory remedy should be availed.