Bombay HC refuses writ petition against Section 148 reassessment order with pending CIT(A) appeal and revision proceedings

The Bombay HC declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a reassessment order under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, where the petitioner had already filed an appeal before CIT(A) and revision proceedings were pending. The court held that since alternate remedies were available and being pursued, the appellate and revisionary authorities should decide the matter considering the court's previous decisions in Hexaware and Siemens regarding validity of reassessment notices under Sections 148A, 148, and 151 of the Act. The HC emphasized that entertaining writ petitions when appellate proceedings are pending would create undesirable precedent requiring all similar matters to be brought before the HC instead of being decided by appropriate statutory authorities.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice, order, and notices under Income Tax Act, 1961; Applicability of Section 151 of the Act; Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite pending appeal and review proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 challenging various notices and orders issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking relief through a writ of certiorari. The petitioner argued that the impugned actions were not valid due to non-compliance with Section 151 of the Act, citing relevant court decisions. The petitioner had also initiated appeal and review proceedings against the assessment order. The respondent contended that the petitioner had already availed of an alternate remedy by filing appeals and should not invoke the court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The court acknowledged the petitioner's pending appeal and review but emphasized that the appellate and revisionary authorities must consider the legal positions established by court decisions.

The court found merit in the respondent's argument that the appellate and revisionary authorities should address the petitioner's contentions regarding the legality of the impugned actions in light of the court decisions. It was deemed appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the pending proceedings before the authorities rather than seeking relief through a writ petition. The court highlighted that entertaining such petitions would burden the court unnecessarily when statutory remedies were available. The court directed the petitioner to continue with the proceedings before the Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority, allowing contentions on the legality of the notices under Section 148 based on court decisions.

In conclusion, the court declined to entertain the petition challenging the assessment order while the appeal and revision proceedings were ongoing. However, the court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that if the impugned actions were prima facie illegal, they should not be enforced until the appellate and revisionary proceedings were concluded. The court ordered a stay on the assessment order until the resolution of the pending proceedings, keeping all contentions raised by the petitioner open for consideration by the authorities. The petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.

---