TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel for the union of India. The present petition has been filed by the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad to quash the assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer-1 (5), Allahabad assessing the petitioner society to tax for the assessment year 2017-18 under the provisions of Section 144 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the 'Act'). The writ petition appears to have been filed in June, 2021 i.e. with laches of more than one and a half year. At the fresh stage itself, affidavits have been exchanged. The orders contained on the order sheet do not reflect any substantial hearing has taken place, till now. However, by the order dated 25.06.2021, on the prayer of learned counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....objected by Shri Mahajan that in any case, the present writ petition has been filed with a long delay/latches which has not been explained. The above preliminary objection has been refuted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by submitting that in the first place, the preliminary objection was not raised at the stage of initial hearing in the matter. Then, it has been submitted that the petitioner had responded to all the notices issued by the Assessing Authority in the course of the assessment proceedings. Thereby, it had brought on record the bye-laws of the petitioner society to establish that it exists for the mutual benefit of the members and that all its receipts are excluded from the taxability of the Principle of Mutuality.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi reported in 2021 (127) Taxmann.com 726, Delhi. Further, it has been submitted that at present, the remedy of Revision is clearly not available as at the stage of filing of the revision, the petitioner society had not been informed of the penalty proceedings under Section 270-A of the Act having been dropped. Referring to the order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure no. 27 of the writ petition), it has been submitted, by that order, the assessing authority has dropped the penalty proceedings against the petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18 under Section 270-A of the Act. Relying on Section 270 AA (2) of the Act read with Sub Section 3, it has been submitted, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petition cannot be rejected on this sole ground." In the present case, neither that objection has been raised nor there is any fact similarity between the two cases. Here, on the admission of the petitioner though it did not file an appeal, yet it has filed a revision which is still pending consideration. In our opinion, the ratio in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (supra), is distinguishable, inasmuch as the ratio in that case contained in paragraph no. 13 of the report reads as under:- "13. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. Bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not always commend to the Court to offer interference when ever such objections are raised. In the present case, the petitioner having already filed a revision prior to filing of the writ petition, we are not inclined to lift to bar of alternate remedy. For that reason, the other decision of the Supreme Court relied by the learned Senior Advocate in the case of Harbans Lal Sahania (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner. As to the last decision relied by learned Senior Advocate is of the Gurgaon Realtek Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (supra), we find, in that case, a remedy of appeal had been availed by the assessee. However, the Delhi High Court lifted the bar of alternate remedy taking note of the ground of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edy had already been availed before the writ petition came to be filed. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that such preliminary objection had not been raised on the first hearing, the court cannot ignore on the admitted fact that before approaching the Court, the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of revision. To entertain such a writ petition would also affect the judicial policy of the Court which it consistently follows of not entertaining such writ petitions, where alternative remedy has already been availed. Being discretionary in nature, the Court remains as consistent as is humanly possible. No exceptional circumstance is made out as may commend to the Court to lift the bar of alternate remedy. Merely, because the....