Court emphasizes statutory remedy over Article 226 for tax disputes. Parties to bear own costs.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioners should utilize the statutory remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rather than seeking relief through Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court clarified that it did not assess the challenged assessment orders on their merits, directing the parties to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdiction to re-open assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of Section 153C versus Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Efficacy of statutory remedy under Section 246(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 246(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that in the absence of any jurisdictional aspect being involved, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not deserve to be entertained. The court emphasized that the petitioners should avail the statutory remedy available under the Act of 1961.

2. Jurisdiction to re-open assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners contended that the respondents had no authority to re-open the assessment under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. They argued that the re-opening was pursuant to the search and seizure carried out in the case of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, and thus, the respondents should have proceeded under Section 153C of the Act of 1961. The court noted that the reasons for re-opening the case under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 were indicated, and it was based on information uploaded on the Insight Portal and flagged as high-risk CRIU/VRU information. The court found that the stand of the respondents was sufficient to refuse to entertain the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Applicability of Section 153C versus Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners argued that the re-opening of the assessment should have been done under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, as the search and seizure operations were carried out at M/s. Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited. The respondents countered that the re-opening was justified under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as the information was shared by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and uploaded on the Insight Portal. The court observed that the respondents had specifically asserted that the re-opening was based on information uploaded on the Insight Portal and not on any books of account or documents seized during the search. Therefore, the provisions of Section 153C were not applicable.

4. Efficacy of statutory remedy under Section 246(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The court emphasized that the petitioners should have contested and challenged the assessment orders on merits through the statutory remedy available under Section 246(1) of the Act of 1961. The court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the re-opening on jurisdictional grounds in their reply to the show cause notice but raised this issue only after the assessment orders were passed. The court held that in the facts of the present cases, the petitioners should invoke the statutory remedy and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court clarifying that it would be open for the petitioners to invoke the statutory remedy as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court did not examine the impugned orders of assessment on merits and stated that the observations made were only for considering the preliminary objection. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---