PANDURONGA TIMBLO INDUSTRIAS, THR. ITS PARTNER, SARVESH PRAMOD TIMBLO vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT/ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI AND 3 ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the writ petition on its merits. Instead, it accepted the preliminary objection raised by the revenue regarding the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) within two weeks. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner until then. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions of all parties were left open, and the petition was not heard on merits. The petitioner was also directed to serve a copy of the order on the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) within two weeks.
What were the facts?
This matter concerns Writ Petition No. 264 of 2021 filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner is Panduronga Timblo Industrias, through its partner Sarvesh Pramod Timblo. The respondents include the Assessment Unit/Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, and three others. The petition was filed challenging an order or action by the revenue. The procedural history indicates that the revenue, through its Standing Counsel, raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in law against the order or action of the revenue, as contended by the revenue. This issue turns on the interpretation and applicability of the remedies provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Revenue (Respondents): The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in law, specifically by filing an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, or by filing a rectification or revision application.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER :
Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3, raises a preliminary objection. She submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy in law inasmuch as the petitioner can file an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act or file a rectification application or a revision application. 21st October 2021
17-WP-264-2021.DOC
In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.3, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) within two weeks from today.
If such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till then, no coercive steps should be taken as against the petitioner. It is made clear that this petition is not heard on merits and, hence, all contentions of all parties are left open.
The petitioner to serve a copy of this Order on the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) within two weeks from today.
Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
All parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this Order. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. 21st October 2021 within three weeks from the date of the certified copy of the order being available to the petitioner. Corrections carried out as per order dated 22.11.2021 in MCA No.250 of 2021. PS, 23.11.2021 NITI K HALDANKAR HALDANKAR Date: 2021.11.23 11:43:22 +05'30'
More judgments on Section 246
- Nirmala Madhukar Dherange, Pune vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 811/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., Chennai vs ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), ChennaiITA 1996/CHNY/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Krishan Kumar Son of Shri Junglee Ram Yadav vs Income Tax OfficerCW/10216/202314 Sept 2026
- Bharat Lal Gupta, Bhadohi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), BhadohiITA 39/VNS/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Vishnnu Kumar Sharma, Churu Rajasthan vs DCIT (International Taxation), JaipurITA 489/JPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
