ASHLY CHERIAN, vs. THE ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ appeals. The Court found that the assessment order and penalty order were passed after complying with all statutory formalities. The appellant was given sufficient opportunity to produce documents to substantiate his contentions but failed to do so. The Court held that the disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in writ petitions. Therefore, instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy, the appellant had rushed to the writ court. The Court found no merit in the appeals and accordingly dismissed them. The ratio decidendi is that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies, especially when disputed questions of fact are involved and the assessee has failed to comply with procedural requirements.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Ashley Cherian, an assessee holding agricultural properties, filed a 'nil' income return for assessment year 2020-2021. His case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Sections 143 and 142(1) were issued. An assessment order dated 13/9/2022 demanded ₹1,10,86,107, and a penalty order under Section 271AAC(1) dated 23/3/2023 imposed a penalty of ₹7,91,113. The appellant challenged these orders by filing two writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala. The learned Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions, directing the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. The appellant has now filed these writ appeals against the Single Judge's judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petitions challenging the assessment and penalty orders without adjudicating on the merits, by relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal? (Question of law and fact, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the writ petitions should have been entertained by the learned Single Judge to address the issues raised, rather than forcing him to the appellate route. (No specific authorities or precedents are mentioned in the judgment for the assessee's arguments). Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Revenue) contended that the assessment and penalty orders were passed after complying with statutory formalities, and the appellant failed to produce necessary documents despite opportunities. The disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, and the appellate remedy was available and appropriate.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
The appellant is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He is holding agricultural properties at Pampadumpara in Idukki District. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2020-2021 declaring total income as 'nil'. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and the appellant was issued notices under Sections 143 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, assessment order dated 13/9/2022 (produced as Ext.P20 in WP(C) No.2136/2023) demanding `1,10,86,107/- and penalty order (produced as Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.18139/2023) under Section 271AAC(1) dated 23/3/2023 imposing a penalty of `7,91,113/- were passed. The appellant challenged the assessment order in WP(C) No. 2136/2023 and the penalty order in WP(C) No.18139/2023. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of WA Nos.287 & 308/2024 appeal.
We have heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the penalty order would show that those orders were passed after complying with all the statutory formalities. Even though the appellant has been given sufficient opportunity to produce the documents to prove his contentions, he failed to produce the necessary documents. Both the orders are appealable. The disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. Instead of availing the appellate remedy, the appellant rushed to the writ court. We find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
