ALBIN BABU ANTHONY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-13 (1) , PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers

WP/1777/2025HC BombayHCBM01003472202510 February 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided not to entertain the writ petition, relegating the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cited the precedent set in Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey v. Income Tax Officer Ward 3-2, Kalyan. While acknowledging the Petitioner's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Limited, the Court found the availability of the statutory appeal to be a decisive factor. The Court directed that if the Petitioner institutes the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority should entertain it without raising an objection regarding the limitation period, considering the Petitioner's bona fide pursuit of the matter before the High Court. The Petitioner was also directed to furnish correct contact details and was informed of their liberty to apply for interim reliefs before the Appellate Authority or the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. All contentions of the parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Albin Babu Anthony, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 16, 2024, passed by the Income Tax Officer-1 (1), Pune. The Respondent, the Income Tax Officer, objected to the consideration of the petition, citing the Petitioner's alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Respondent relied on a previous High Court decision in Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey v. Income Tax Officer Ward 3-2, Kalyan, where a similar writ petition challenging an assessment order was not entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Petitioner sought to rely on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the Petitioner? (Question of law, turning on the principles of alternative remedy and writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner, while acknowledging the alternative remedy, sought to rely on the High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others. The Petitioner's counsel submitted that the appeal would be instituted within four weeks, and if so, the Appellate Authority should entertain it without considering the limitation period due to the Petitioner pursuing the matter before the High Court on legal advice and bona fide. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent objected to the consideration of the writ petition on the grounds that the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal. The Respondent relied on the High Court's decision in Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey v. Income Tax Officer Ward 3-2, Kalyan, where a writ petition challenging an assessment order was not entertained due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned as being discussed in detail, but the context implies the application of provisions related to appeals under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

25-WP-1777-25(1)F.DOCX Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2025 Albin Babu Anthony …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer-1 (1), Pune …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr Ravindra Poojari, for Petitioner. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 10 February 2025 PC:-

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This petition challenges the assessment order dated 16 March 2024. Mr Sharma objected to its consideration on the grounds that the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal.

Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent, relied on the decision of this Court dated 12 August 2024 in Writ Petition No. 11166 of 2024 (Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey v. Income Tax Officer Ward 3-2, Kalyan), wherein a Writ Petition challenging an assessment order was not entertained, despite the challenge based on Hexaware (Supra) being raised due to SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2025.02.12 10:08:18 +0530

25-WP-1777-25(1)F.DOCX course followed in Rajan Dube [Supra], though there, the Petitioner instituted the writ petition after filing an appeal to save the limitation bar.

Mr Poojari, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Appeal will be instituted within four weeks of today. If it is indeed instituted within four weeks of today, then the Appellate Authority should entertain it without going into the limitation issue. This is because the petitioner was pursuing the matter before this court on legal advice and bona fide.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner will now furnish the Income Tax Authorities with his correct address and E-mail ID so that there will be no confusion about service of notice, at least hereafter. This should also be done within four weeks from today.

The Petitioner will also be free to apply for appropriate interim reliefs before the Appellate Authority or the Principal 1 (2024) 464 ITR 43 25-WP-1777-25(1)F.DOCX Commissioner of Income Tax. We note that in the order dated 12 August 2024 made by the Co-ordinate Bench, considering (2023) 547 ITR 647

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →