LAKSHMANAN MEENAKSHI vs. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL / CHENNAI

WP(MD)/16162/2026HC MadrasHCMD01070884202615 June 2026Author: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY6 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that when a petitioner is challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appropriate remedy is to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that this section also provides for the entertainment of appeals filed with a delay application, if sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the Court found that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute. The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the High Court in accordance with Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lakshmanan Meenakshi, proprietrix of M/s. Sree Valampuri Agencies & M/s. Nataraja Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 28.12.2019 (Assistant Commissioner), 20.10.2023 (CIT(Appeals)/NFAC), and 10.01.2024 (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal). The petitioner sought to quash the addition of Rs. 1,06,107/- as unexplained cash credit, which was sustained by the Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the orders were illegal due to errors by the respondents, and that an earlier part of the original proposal was dropped, but the appellate authorities failed to consider this. The petitioner also mentioned a pending second rectification application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the orders were patently illegal due to errors committed by the respondents and that the appellate authorities failed to consider crucial aspects, thus justifying the writ petition. The petitioner also highlighted a pending rectification application. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court against the Tribunal's order, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, /Chennai,

Before: and

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P(MD)No.16162 of 2026

ITA No. 1210/CHNY/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated 28.12.2019, 20.10.2023 and 10.01.2024. As against the order of assessment, the petitioner has filed an appeal and thereafter before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned orders, and hence the petitioner is before this Court. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire order is only on account of an error committed by the respondents. When pointed out, the earlier part of the original proposal was dropped while confirming the remaining proposal, the appellate authority and the Tribunal also failed to look into the aspect, and they ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The orders are patently illegal, and therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Department would submit that the petitioner has to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before this Court as against the order of the Tribunal. When there is an efficacious remedy before this Court by way of an appeal, the petitioner's writ petition cannot be entertained.

The learned counsel, in reply, would submit that the petitioner has also filed a second application for rectification, and the same is also pending consideration. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

When the petitioner is impugning the order of the Tribunal, dated 10.01.2024 passed in the appeal, the petitioner has a remedy of approaching this Court by way of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as stated supra. Even there is provision to approach this Court along with a delay application and if the Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause, the appeal will also be entertained.

In view thereof, and giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before this Court in accordance with Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.06.

2026 NCC : Yes/No sji 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal/Chennai, A-3, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi C-Block, 4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corp. Circle 2, Madurai, C.R. Building, No.2, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, Bibikulam, Madurai-625002. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J. sji 15.06.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →