TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (L) No. 24718 of 2024 pertains to assessment year 2016-17. As challenge raised in both these petitions is common, we propose to dispose of these petitions by this common order. 2. The impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in Writ Petition (L) No. 23065 of 2024 is dated 30 July, 2022, which resulted in assessment order dated 27 May, 2023. In Writ Petition (L) No. 24718 of 2024 such notice is dated 29 March, 2023 which has resulted in the assessment order dated 30 March, 2024. The prayers made in both the petitions are common, but pertain to different notices and for different assessment years. For convenience, we note the prayers as made in the Writ Petition (L) No. 23065 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof; be pleased to declare the Impugned Instruction No. 01 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022 as ultra vires the Act and bad in law and hence the same be struck down;" 3. The challenge as raised in these petitions are to the notice under Section 148 and on the ground that the impugned notice would be required to be held to be illegal in view of the law as laid down in the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors. (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Hexaware). We are fairly informed at the bar that a final assessment order has already been passed and such order has been appealed against by the petitioner, and such appeals are pending. 4. Our attention is dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. He, however, submits that considering the decision of this Court being of the jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware (supra) and Siemens (supra), the present petition has been filed despite the petitioner's appeal and revision remaining pending. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for revenue would submit that much prior to the decisions of this Court in Hexaware as also in Siemens (supra), the petitioner in the present case has availed of an alternate remedy. It is hence submitted that in the facts of the case it would be appropriate that the statutory remedy which is already availed by the petitioner, be pursued by the petitioner and not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegal when tested on the law as declared by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. 9. We are of the opinion that an approach ought not to be followed that when the appellate authority is already seized with the proceedings, we entertain writ petitions to adjudicate, what can certainly be adjudicated by the appellate authority, considering the said decisions of this Court. As rightly pointed by Mr. Sharma an approach otherwise, would create a situation that all matters which are pending before the Appellate Authority and which are supposed to be decided in accordance with law involving issues on applicability of the decisions of this Court, in disposing of the proceedings would be required to be entertained by this Court. Certainly, su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the pending proceedings are expressly kept open." 5. In the light of the aforesaid observations, we need to be consistent in our approach. We may observe that the appellate authority is bound by the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is open to the petitioner to raise in the appellate proceedings, all such pleas as raised in the present petitions. Certainly, the appellate authority would consider all the pleas which the petitioner intends to urge including that the notice under Section 148 issued is itself illegal in view of what has been held in the decision of this Court in Hexaware. 6. The justification of the petitioner to pursue these petitions is that the appeal would ....