EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/7529/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02038998202208 July 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning for this decision was the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The court acknowledged that numerous grounds were urged by the petitioner, but given the circumstances and the availability of a statutory appeal, the High Court chose not to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue all available legal grounds in their appeal, including those raised in the writ petition. The petitioner was also given the liberty to seek condonation of delay for filing the appeal, considering the time spent pursuing the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Edila Business World Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Prakul Khurana and Mr. Rajat Sharma, while Ms. Parinitoo Jain represented the respondents. The High Court heard the arguments on the various grounds raised by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner urged several grounds challenging the impugned order passed under Section 263. While the specific grounds are not detailed, the petitioner sought intervention from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the availability of an alternative remedy was a significant factor.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7529/2022 Edila Business World Private Limited, C- Block, Multimetals Limited Campus, 6/7 Heavy Industrial Area Ladpura, Kota - 324003, Rajasthan Through Its Director Mr. Ajay Agrawal, S/o Late Sh. Manna Lal Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Bunglow No. 03, J.k Nagar, Kota-324003 Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur, Aayakar Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Cr Building, Rawatbhata Road, Kota-324009 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakul Khurana Advocate with Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment / Order 08/07/2022 Heard. The number of grounds have been urged before us in the matter of challenge to impugned order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the nature of grounds and that the petitioner otherwise has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the order. We dismiss the petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds which are available to him under the law including those which have been raised in this petition.

(2 of 2) [CW-7529/2022] The petitioner would be at liberty to pray for condonation of delay as the petition was filed and remained pending before this Court until passing of this order.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Sanjay Kumawat-66

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →