ANIL RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11536/2025HC BombayHCBM01046250202503 September 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found considerable force in the argument advanced by the Revenue. It was not disputed that the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice were dated April 20, 2021, and the Penalty Order was dated March 21, 2022. It was also undisputed that the Petitioner had challenged both the Assessment Order and the Penalty Order before the CIT(A). The Court held that this was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court reiterated that the remedy under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and the conduct of the party invoking it cannot be ignored. When a party has multiple remedies, they must select one and cannot indulge in multiplicity of actions. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition and dismissed it, directing the Petitioner to prosecute the appeals filed before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Ramchandran Pillai, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated April 12, 2021, an assessment order dated April 20, 2021 (under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B), a demand notice dated April 20, 2021 (under Section 156), and penalty orders dated March 21, 2022, and January 30, 2022 (under Section 270A and 272A(1)(d)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against both the assessment and penalty orders. The Revenue also contended that the petition was hit by latches and delay, having been filed approximately four years after the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable when the Petitioner has already availed of the alternate remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the impugned Assessment Order and Penalty Orders? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Writ Petition is barred by latches and delay? (Question of fact and law) The Petitioner argued that the Writ Petition could be entertained due to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner also contended that a subsequent stay application, which resulted in a direction to pay Rs. 1.25 Crores as a condition for stay and subsequent attachment of the Petitioner's bank account, provided another cause of action and indicated no delay in approaching the High Court. The Revenue argued that the Petitioner had already availed of the alternate remedy by filing appeals before the CIT(A) and therefore, the Writ Petition ought not to be entertained. The Revenue also submitted that the petition was squarely hit by latches and delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

29.

as.wp.11536.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11536 OF 2025 Anil Ramchandran Pillai .. Petitioner Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre (formerly known as National E-Assessment Centre), Delhi, Assessment Unit [AU] and Others .. Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain i/b. Advocate Shahank A. Mehta, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta, Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 P. C.

1.

The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 12th April, 2021, the impugned Assessment Order dated 20th April, 2021 (passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B), the impugned Demand Notice dated 20th April, 2021 issued under Section 156 as well as the impugned Penalty Order dated 21st March, 2022 and 30th January, 2022 [passed under Section 270A, 272A(1)(d)] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

29.

as.wp.11536.25.doc

2.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue took a Preliminary Objection to the entertainability of the above Writ Petition. He submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned Assessment Order, the Petitioner has already preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”], and which is pending. He further submitted that the Petitioner has also preferred an Appeal from the Penalty Order dated 21st March, 2022. Once the Petitioner has availed of the alternate remedy, the above Petition ought not to be entertained and the Petitioner be directed to prosecute the Appeals filed by him, was the submission. The learned counsel for the Revenue also submitted that the above Petition is squarely hit by latches and delay as the Petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of four years from the passing the impugned assement order dated 20th April, 2021. For all these reasons, he submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

3.

On the Preliminary Objection, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that though it is true that the Petitioner has preferred the abovementioned Appeals before CIT(A), since this is a case of breach of the principles of natural justice, the Writ Petition can be entertained. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after the order of Penalty was passed, the Petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and filed another Stay Application on 27th June, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

29.

as.wp.11536.25.doc

2025.

That Stay Application was disposed of by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer vide his order dated 26th July, 2025 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1.25 Crores (20% of the sum of Rs.6,26,95,884/-) as a condition precedent for the stay. This amount was to be deposited by 4th August, 2025. Since, this amount was not deposited, the Bank Account of the Petitioner is attached and this also gives another cause of action to the Petitioner to approach this Court. He, accordingly, submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Petitioner in filing the above Writ Petition invoking the juri iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the Preliminary Objection. We find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue. It is not in dispute that the impugned Assessment Order was passed on 20th April, 2021 and the impugned Demand Notice [issued under Section 156] is also dated 20th April, 2021. Even the impugned Penalty Order passed under Section 270A is dated 21st March, 2022. It is also not in dispute that the impugned Assessment Order as well as the impugned Penalty Order have been challenged by the Petitioner before CIT(A). In these circumstances, we find that this is not a fit case where this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We say this because it is a well established position that the remedy of a Writ SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

29.

as.wp.11536.25.doc

under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and this Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct of the party invoking that remedy. When a party has several remedies for the same cause of action, he must select his remedy and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of action. The exercise of discretion to issue a Writ, is a matter of granting equitable relief. Once the Petitioner has already filed Appeals before CIT(A) and availed of the alternate remedy, we are of the opinion that the petitioner ought to prosecute his appeals filed before the CIT(A). We, therefore, decline to entertain the above Writ Petition and dismiss the same.

5.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Bank Account of the Petitioner has been attached by the Income Tax Authorities and is causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner. He, therefore, requested that directions be passed to decide the Appeals filed by the Petitioner in a time bound manner. Considering these facts and circumstances, we direct that the CIT(A) shall dispose of the Appeals filed by the Petitioner, not only from the impugned Assessment Order dated 20th April, 2021 but also from Penalty Orders dated 21st March, 2022 and 30th January, 2022, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court Website. SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

29.

as.wp.11536.25.doc

6.

The above Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.

7.

Though, the Writ Petition is dismissed, to ensure that the directions given to the CIT(A) are strictly followed, we place the above Writ Petition on board for reporting the compliance, on 4th November, 2025. 8. This order will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →