TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether the writ petition under Article 226 challenging orders of the appellate authority under the Income Tax Act should be entertained in the presence of an equally efficacious alternate statutory remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 253.
1.2 Whether the alleged "manifest error" in the interpretation of section 194B by the appellate authority justified bypassing the alternate remedy and warranted exercise of writ jurisdiction.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 & 2 - Maintainability of writ petition in presence of alternate remedy under section 253 of the Income Tax Act; effect of alleged manifest error in interpretation of section 194B
(a) Legal framework (as discussed)
2.1 The Court referred to the statutory scheme under the Income Tax Act, noting that against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), an appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 253, which constitutes an equally efficacious alternate remedy.
2.2 The Court noted the consistent position of the Supreme Court deprecating the practice of High Courts entertaining writ petitions when an equally efficacious alternate remedy is available under the statute.
(b) Interpretation and reasoning
2.3 The Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner, having already availed the remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the relevant assessment years, ought to pursue the further statutory remedy of appeal to the Tribunal instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction.
2.4 The petitioner argued that there was a "manifest error" in the impugned orders on the ground that section 194B, as it stood for the relevant assessment years, contemplated deduction of tax at source only when the winnings from a particular game exceeded Rs. 10,000, and not on an aggregate basis; and that the concept of aggregation was introduced only with effect from 1 April 2023. On this basis, it was contended that the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternate remedy.
2.5 The Court recorded that the appellate orders for each assessment year were detailed orders passed after hearing the petitioner, and found no reason why the petitioner should not be relegated to the remedy of appeal to the Tribunal.
2.6 The Court noted that it was not even the petitioner's case that the alternate remedy under section 253 was not "equally efficacious," and reiterated the principle that, where such a remedy exists, the High Court would ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction.
2.7 The Court did not enter into the merits of the petitioner's contention on the correct interpretation of section 194B or the alleged manifest error, holding instead that these issues can and should be agitated before the Tribunal in the statutory appeal.
(c) Conclusions
2.8 The Court held that, in view of the equally efficacious alternate remedy of appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, the writ petition was not to be entertained.
2.9 The petitioner was relegated to the alternate remedy, with a direction to file appeals before the Tribunal within four weeks; if filed within that period, the Tribunal was directed to entertain the appeals on merits without raising any issue of limitation.
2.10 The writ petition was dismissed with these directions, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
