SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE GOVIND NARAYAN SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/8299/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02042812202615 July 2026Author: ARUN MONGA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason was the existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the petitioner had failed to avail. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 249 of the Act. However, instead of outright dismissing the petitioner's attempt to seek redressal, the Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all his legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority. Furthermore, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court directed that the time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition before the High Court would be excluded by the Appellate Authority while calculating the limitation period for entertaining the appeal, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of this order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Jaipur. This order assessed the petitioner's income under Sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 56,68,487 and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The writ petition was filed on 02.05.2026, which was 16 days beyond the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the assessee regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The assessee appears to have proceeded with filing the writ petition directly. Revenue's Contention: The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy provided under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They also pointed out that the writ petition was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 249 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 246,Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:26744-DB] `HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8299/2026 URN: CW / 18322U / 2026 Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Govind Narayan Sharma, Aged About 74 Years, R/o H No. 21/189, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020, Rajasthan, India ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Jaipur, C-95, Baba Sid- dhnath Bhawan, Jan Path, Lai Kothi Jaipur. 2. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Depart- ment, New Delhi - 110003 Through Chief Commissioner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 15/07/2026

1.

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Assess- ment Order 20.03.2026 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner's income was assessed under Sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 56,68,487/-, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were ini- tiated

2.

Heard and perused the case file.

3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents objects to the maintainability of the writ petition herein, stating that the alternative remedy provided under Section 246 of Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has not been availed.

4.

The instant writ petition was filed on 02.05.2026 challenging the impugned order after a delay of 16 days beyond the limitation period

[2026:RJ-JP:26744-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8299/2026] prescribed under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (within 30 days) to file an appeal under Section 246 of the Act, ibid. However, since the competent authority is empowered to condone such delay upon sufficient cause being shown, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition directly without the petitioner first availing the efficacious alternate statutory remedy. Relevant of Section 249, ibid, reads as un- der: “Section 249. From of appeal and limitation x-x-x-x-x (3) The [*** Commissioner (Appeals)] may admit an appeal after the expira- tion of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.”

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the peti- tioner to raise all his grounds, legal and factual, before the appellate authority.

6.

In the parting, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Con- stitution of India, it is directed that time taken before this Court shall be excluded by the Appellate Authority while calculating limitation period to entertain the appeal under Section 246, ibid, if the appeal is filed within 30 days.

7.

Disposed of accordingly.

8.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J 87/Seema

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →