https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783818 A penalty order under s.271(1)(c) was challenged as premature and without jurisdiction pending disposal of the quantum appeal before the ITAT. Relying on binding HC precedents holding that such penalty orders cannot be passed before appellate culmination, the HC held the assessing authority ought to have kept penalty proceedings in abeyance until the ITAT's decision; consequently, the impugned penalty order was quashed. On maintainability, despite an objection of alternate remedy, the HC exercised Art.226 discretion because the order was ex facie illegal/lacking jurisdiction, consistent with SC principles on exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule; the writ was entertained. The HC also held the Finance Act, 2025 amendment to s.275 applies prospectively from 1 April 2025 to pending matters, without reviving time-barred cases, but would not validate the premature order. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783818 A penalty order under s.271(1)(c) was challenged as premature and without jurisdiction pending disposal of the quantum appeal before the ITAT. Relying on binding HC precedents holding that such penalty orders cannot be passed before appellate culmination, the HC held the assessing authority ought to have kept penalty proceedings in abeyance until the ITAT's decision; consequently, the impugned penalty order was quashed. On maintainability, despite an objection of alternate remedy, the HC exercised Art.226 discretion because the order was ex facie illegal/lacking jurisdiction, consistent with SC principles on exceptions to the alternate-remedy rule; the writ was entertained. The HC also held the Finance Act, 2025 amendment to s.275 applies prospectively from 1 April 2025 to pending matters, without reviving time-barred cases, but would not validate the premature order. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783818