Writ Petition Dismissed for Parallel Remedies: Withdraw Appeal First

The court held that a writ petition under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act was not maintainable when an appeal was already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Emphasizing the prohibition on pursuing parallel remedies, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to withdraw the appeal before seeking relief through the writ court. The decision did not assess the case's merits and imposed no costs, underscoring the need for adherence to proper legal procedures and avoiding simultaneous proceedings for orderly dispute resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition when an appeal has been filed before the appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment in question deals with the issue of the maintainability of a writ petition under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when an appeal has already been filed before the appellate authority. The assessing authority passed an order under Section 144 on a best judgment assessment basis, which was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition. The respondent argued that since the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the writ petition was not maintainable as pursuing parallel remedies is not allowed.

The court upheld the respondent's objection, stating that a litigant cannot pursue parallel remedies. While acknowledging that the petitioner had filed an appeal, the court emphasized that the appellate authority is competent to address the issues raised in the writ petition. The court expressed disapproval of the petitioner's conduct in not withdrawing the appeal before seeking relief through the writ petition. The judge clarified that merely filing an appeal does not preclude the right to approach the writ court, but the appeal should have been withdrawn to avoid maintaining parallel proceedings.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition while allowing the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy. The judge made it clear that the decision did not delve into the merits of the case and no costs were imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and avoiding parallel proceedings to ensure the orderly resolution of disputes.

---