Court emphasizes statutory appeal under Section 246A, upholding structured tax dispute resolution

The court refrained from delving into the challenge against the Assessment Order under Section 80B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act. It stressed the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing established practices in fiscal statutes. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to appeal under Section 246A, with the option to request Condonation of Delay if needed, maintaining the structured resolution of tax-related disputes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to Assessment Order under Section 80B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Availability of alternate remedy under Section 246A of the IT Act.
3. Application of the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case pertains to a challenge against an Assessment Order dated 12.03.2021 under Section 80B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought deduction under Section 80B, claiming that the income collected from borrowers should be disbursed to depositors. However, the court refrained from delving into factual aspects due to the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner can raise the Section 80B point in the appeal before the Appellate Authority, preserving the right to do so.

2. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting alternate remedies available under the law, especially in fiscal statutes. It cited various case laws, including Dunlop India and K.C.Mathew, emphasizing that the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution should be strictly followed. The court reiterated that the writ court's interference should be limited, particularly in matters involving recovery of public dues or fiscal issues, and that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the court.

3. Referring to a previous case where a similar view was upheld by a Division Bench, the court affirmed that the rule of seeking alternate remedies before the Appellate Authority in fiscal statutes is a well-established practice. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the Assessment Order under Section 246A of the IT Act. The court also mentioned that if there is a delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner can request Condonation of Delay, which the Appellate Authority will decide based on merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, particularly in matters concerning fiscal statutes. It upholds the principle that alternate remedies should be pursued before approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, ensuring a structured and lawful process in resolving tax-related disputes.

---