High Court dismisses petition challenging Income Tax Act order, emphasizes appeal remedy

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961, citing the availability of an appeal remedy under Section 253(1)(f) of the Act. Despite the petitioner's argument of the delayed objection, the Court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory appeal avenues before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue the appeal process, with the option to seek condonation for any filing errors. The judgment highlighted the significance of following statutory procedures and respecting alternate legal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 253(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal and Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ., addressed the issue of the maintainability of a petition challenging an order passed under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection, contending that the impugned order was appealable under Section 253(1)(f) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act 2015, and thus the petition should not be entertained without exhausting the remedy of appeal. The Court acknowledged the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, which had not been utilized. Despite the petitioner filing the petition without any objection raised earlier, the Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory appeal process.

The Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the objection regarding the alternate remedy was not raised initially or in the counter affidavit. However, the Court reiterated that the existence of the right to file an appeal under the Act cannot be overlooked, regardless of when the objection was raised. The judgment emphasized that the availability of an alternate remedy through the appeal process precludes the Court from adjudicating on factual aspects using extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternate remedy, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal process.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 253(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Court instructed the Appellate Authority to consider any application for condoning the delay sympathetically if the petitioner seeks to rectify the filing error. The certified copy of the impugned order was to be returned to the petitioner, retaining a copy on record. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory appeal process and respecting the availability of alternate remedies provided by the law.

---