SAURABH NITINKUMAR JAIN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7686/2025HC BombayHCBM01024863202523 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition challenging the Order of Assessment on merits, as the petitioner had an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court decided to relegate the petitioner to avail of this statutory remedy. To address potential issues of limitation, the Court directed that if the appeal was filed within three weeks from the date of the order, the Appellate Authority should entertain it without raising the issue of limitation, effectively condoning any delay in filing within that period. Furthermore, the ad-interim relief granted earlier was continued until the Appellate Authority decided the petitioner's application for a stay of the demand.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saurabh Nitinkumar Jain, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an Order of Assessment dated March 27, 2025, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner also assailed the consequential demand notice dated March 27, 2025, issued under Section 156, and show cause notices dated March 27, 2025, proposing penalties under Section 270A and Section 271AAC. The High Court noted that the challenge to the assessment order was on merits and that the petitioner possessed an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition challenging an Order of Assessment on merits when an equally efficacious alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available to the petitioner? The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to challenge the assessment order and consequential notices on merits. The revenue, represented by its counsel, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the assessment but was implicitly represented by the existence of the assessment order and demand. The primary issue before the High Court was procedural: whether to exercise its writ jurisdiction or relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 270A,Section 271AAC,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sr.73-wp-7686-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7686 OF 2025 Saurabh Nitinkumar Jain .. Petitioner Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla a/w Adv. Devendra Jain a/w Adv. Shashank Mehta for the Petitioner. Adv. A. K. Saxena for the Respondents-Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition is filed to quash and set aside the Impugned Order of Assessment dated 27th March, 2025 passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Consequently, the demand notice dated 27th March, 2025 issued under Section 156 and Show Cause Notices dated 27th March, 2025 proposing to impose penalty under Section 270A and Section 271AAC, are also assailed. We find that in the above Writ Petition, the Order of Assessment is challenged on merits. We find that the Petitioner has an equally efficacious Page 1 of 3 FEBRUARY 23, 2026 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.02.26 14:26:56 +0530

sr.73-wp-7686-2025.doc

alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Act to challenge the Order of Assessment. 2.

In these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the above Writ Petition, and relegate the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy under Section 246A. 3.

Since an issue of limitation may arise, we direct that if the Appeal is filed [under Section 246A] within a period of three weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the Appeal without raising the issue of limitation. In other words, if the Appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal is hereby condoned. 4.

Since, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, we had granted ad-interim relief by our Order dated 1st December, 2025, we continue this ad-interim relief till the application seeking a stay of the demand, which is proposed to be filed by the Petitioner along with this Appeal, is decided by the Appellate Authority. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy. Page 2 of 3 FEBRUARY 23, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.73-wp-7686-2025.doc

6.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 FEBRUARY 23, 2026 Mansi shelke

More judgments on Section 144B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →