High Court Declines Jurisdiction Under Art. 226, Directs Petitioner to Appeal to CIT(A) for Income Tax Dispute Resolution.

The HC declined to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under Sec. 246A of the Income Tax Act. The Court directed the CIT(A) to consider the petitioner's appeal if filed within two weeks, assuring no coercive action until rectification applications were resolved. The writ petition was disposed of, highlighting the appellate process's adequacy for addressing jurisdictional errors.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under Article 226 of the Constitution - Taxability of anonymous donations under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act - Availability of alternative remedy under Section 246A - Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain the petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 31st December 2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution, contesting the taxability of anonymous donations received in 'dakshina boxes' under Section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the exclusion clause in Sub-Section (2) of Section 115BBC should apply, citing binding decisions of the Tribunal and a circular by the CBDT in their favor. The High Court noted that while its jurisdiction under Article 226 is plenary, it generally refrains from exercising discretion if an efficacious alternate remedy is available under the statute in which the impugned order was passed. The Court emphasized the importance of an alternate remedy under Section 246A of the Act, available through an appeal to the CIT(A).

The Revenue contended that factual disputes regarding the nature of the trust needed determination, as the petitioner initially claimed to be a religious trust but later asserted to be a mixed-purpose trust. The High Court acknowledged the Assessing Officer's interpretation that the trust was not for religious purposes, which could be rectified through an appeal to the CIT(A). The Court highlighted that errors within jurisdiction should be addressed through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition under Article 226.

The Court referenced the decision of the Apex Court in a similar context, emphasizing the importance of pure questions of law in determining the appropriateness of entertaining a writ petition. It was noted that the CIT(A) would be bound by the Tribunal's decisions, and therefore, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy available under the Act. The Court underscored that the relief sought by the petitioners could be obtained through the appellate authority, rendering the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction unnecessary.

In conclusion, the High Court directed the CIT(A) to entertain the petitioner's appeal, if filed within two weeks, without objections to delay. The Revenue assured that no coercive proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner trust until the disposal of rectification applications. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through the appellate process under the Income Tax Act.

---