Writ petition dismissed as taxpayer already filed appeals challenging reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148

The Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, finding that the petitioner had already availed alternate remedies by filing substantive appeals. The court held that since appeal and revision proceedings were pending before CIT(A) and revisionary authority, these authorities must consider the petitioner's contentions regarding illegality of assessment orders and notices under Sections 148A and 148, particularly in light of HC precedents in Hexaware and Siemens cases regarding Section 151A and 151 compliance. The court refused to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue pending appellate proceedings, while noting that if the assessment order and notices were prima facie illegal per established precedents, they should not be given effect until appellate proceedings conclude.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 seeking various reliefs including challenging the jurisdiction and legality of assessment orders and notices issued under the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 challenging the jurisdiction and legality of assessment orders and notices issued under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order and notice were not sanctioned by the appropriate authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The petitioner had already filed an appeal and a Review Application, which were pending. The petitioner acknowledged the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in similar cases but proceeded with the petition due to the pending appeal and revision. The Revenue contended that the statutory remedy had been availed by the petitioner, and the appellate and revisional authorities should consider the court's decisions. The Court agreed with the Revenue, emphasizing that the appellate and revisionary authorities must consider the legal position established by the High Court's decisions. The Court held that the petitioner should pursue the pending proceedings before the appellate and revisionary authorities, as they are best suited to adjudicate on the issues raised. The Court refused to entertain the petition challenging the assessment order while the appeal and revision were pending, as it could create unnecessary duplication of proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns and ordered that the assessment order would remain stayed until the appellate and revisionary proceedings were concluded. The petitioner was allowed to raise contentions regarding the illegality of the notice issued under Section 148 based on the High Court's decisions in similar cases. All contentions of the petitioner in the pending proceedings were expressly kept open, and the petition was disposed of with no costs.

---