Writ petition challenging sections 147-148A assessment orders dismissed where substantive appeals already filed

The Bombay HC declined to entertain a writ petition challenging assessment orders under sections 147-148A where the petitioner had already filed substantive appeals. The court held that once alternate remedies under the Income Tax Act are pursued, the appellate and revisionary authorities must consider legal positions established in HC precedents regarding sections 151 and 151A. The court emphasized that entertaining writ petitions when appellate proceedings are pending would create undesirable precedent requiring HC intervention in all matters involving court decisions. The petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue pending appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition seeking writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Applicability of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
4. Availability of alternative statutory remedy.
5. Validity of notice issued to a non-existing entity.
6. Jurisdiction of the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities.
7. Legality of impugned assessment order and notice under Section 148.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking various reliefs, including writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition. The petitioner challenged the legality of the notice dated 19.04.2021, order dated 30.07.2022, and subsequent notices issued under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the impugned order and notices were contrary to Section 151 of the Act, citing precedents like Hexaware Technologies Limited and Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner had also filed an appeal and a Review Application, but proceeded with the petition due to the decisions of the High Court. The respondent contended that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy already availed, rather than invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on the decisions in Hexaware and Siemens but emphasized that the Appellate and Revisionary Authorities should consider the legal position established by those judgments. The Court noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies available and should raise contentions before the statutory authorities. It was deemed inappropriate to entertain the petition challenging the assessment order while the appeal was pending. However, the Court agreed that if the impugned order and notice were prima facie illegal, they should not take effect until the appellate and revisionary proceedings concluded.

Ultimately, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue proceedings before the CIT(A) and the Revisionary Authority, allowing contentions on the notice's illegality under Section 148 in light of the High Court decisions. The impugned assessment order was stayed until the conclusion of the appellate and revisionary proceedings, with all petitioner's contentions expressly kept open. The petition was disposed of with no costs incurred.

---