Statutory appellate remedy prevails over writ amendment, while constitutional challenge to section 234C(1) proviso remains open.

A writ amendment to challenge the appellate order was refused because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and the court would not let writ proceedings bypass that remedy. The availability of the appellate hierarchy, including further recourse under section 260A if required, weighed against entertaining the amendment. The constitutional challenge to the proviso to section 234C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not examined on merits and was kept open for consideration after disposal of the appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be amended to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) despite a pending appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and whether the constitutional challenge to the proviso to section 234C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be pursued at this stage.

Analysis: The request to incorporate a challenge to the appellate order was declined because it would bypass the statutory appellate remedy already invoked before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The pendency of that appeal meant that the petitioner had an adequate statutory course available, including further recourse under section 260A if necessary. The constitutional challenge to the proviso to section 234C(1) was not decided on merits and was left open for consideration after disposal of the appellate proceedings.

Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed, while the challenge to the proviso to section 234C(1) was left open for a later stage.

---