Alternative remedy and electronic evidence in income-tax assessments: writ relief declined, and section 65B compliance held inapplicable.

Where an effective statutory appeal exists under the Income-tax Act, writ relief against assessment orders is ordinarily declined, and the assessee must pursue the appellate forum; the Court found no basis to bypass that remedy merely because procedural or natural justice objections were raised. It also held that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial and not governed by the strict rules of evidence applicable to court proceedings, so section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the corresponding provision in section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam do not apply to income-tax assessments. Electronic material may therefore be considered, while its genuineness and probative value remain open to challenge in appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders ought to have been entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the corresponding provision in section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, apply to assessment proceedings before the income tax authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders ought to have been entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessment machinery under the Income-tax Act provides a complete appellate remedy, and the existence of exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy does not create any automatic right to invoke writ jurisdiction. Even where allegations of procedural breach or natural justice are raised, the writ court must still exercise discretion and examine whether the grievance truly goes to the root of the matter. The Court found that the assessments involved extensive material, substantial additions, and a completed statutory process, and that it would be inappropriate to annul the assessments and order de novo proceedings on a technical ground. The Court therefore preferred relegation to the appellate forum, while preserving limited liberty to urge certain contentions there.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable as a matter of discretion in view of the effective alternative remedy, and the assessee was relegated to appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the corresponding provision in section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, apply to assessment proceedings before the income tax authorities.

Analysis: The Court held that assessment proceedings are not judicial proceedings governed by the strict rules of evidence, and income tax authorities are not bound by the technical requirements of the Evidence Act or the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in the same manner as courts. The statutory scheme and prior authority distinguish quasi-judicial tax adjudication from court proceedings, and the absence of a section 65B certificate cannot, by itself, exclude electronic material from consideration in assessment. At the same time, the assessee remains entitled to challenge the genuineness and probative value of the material before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, do not apply to assessment proceedings before the income tax authorities.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals succeeded, the writ court's interference was set aside, and the assessees were directed to pursue the statutory appeal remedy with limited liberty on the evidentiary objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal lies under the Income-tax Act, writ relief is ordinarily declined in assessment matters, and the strict rules governing admissibility of evidence in court proceedings do not govern quasi-judicial income tax assessment proceedings.

---