Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.08.2025
MEENA CHAWLA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, Mr. Vikas Pandey and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocates.
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai SSC, Mr. Menon, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs, Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Tanishq Ahuja, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 12523/2025 & CM APPL. 51104/2025 (Stay)
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“I. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction for quashing / setting aside Order dated 07.05.2025 passed u/s. 260/147/144B of the Income tax Act, order dated 29.05.2023 u/s 147/144B of the Income Tax Act, demand notice dated 29.05.2023, Notice dated 14.10.2022 u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, order dated 18.11.2022 issued u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, notice dated 14.10.2022 u/s 148 of the Act issued Without DIN and Without Digital Signatures as they are arbitrary, unfair and violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and principles of natural justice, and all the subsequent Orders/Notices/Proceedings emanating therefrom initiated by the Respondents;
II. Issue appropriate Writ(s) of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ staying the effect and operation of the Order u/s. 260/147/144B dated 07.05.2025, order u/s 147 r/w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.05.2023, and Demand Notice dated 29.05.2023 as they are arbitrary, unfair and violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and principles of natural justice[1] and all the subsequent Orders/Notices/Proceedings emanating therefrom initiated by the Respondents;”
4. The petitioner filed income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. On 01.04.2021 a notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued by the Respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the name of the petitioner stating that the respondents had reasons to believe that the income of the petitioner chargeable for taxation purposes for the AY 2016-17 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.
5. Additionally, in the year 2021-22, notices were issued to the petitioner to furnish certain information electronically pertaining to the AY 2016-17. The petitioner furnished a reply to the same stating that no income has escaped assessment and as such the procedures may kindly be withdrawn.
6. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner bearing WP(C) NO. 2016/2022 against the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, on 01.04.2021. The said writ petition was decided along with batch matters with the lead matter being Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. WP(C) 3908/2023, wherein this Court in paragraphs 26 to 29 held as under:-
decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.”
7. Pursuant to the orders of this Court whereby the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO), the AO has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2025. It may be stated here that on 29.05.2023, the AO during the pendency of the above writ petition has passed the assessment order. The AO in his latest order passed pursuant to the directions given by this Court has re-computed the income of the petitioner and reiterated the assessment order dated 29.05.2023.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra), the petitioner had filed his submissions on 29.02.2025 to contest the assessment proceedings including the assessment order dated 29.05.2023.
9. But while passing the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, the AO has not considered any of the pleas urged by the petitioner and hence, the assessment order dated 29.05.2023 which has been upheld by the AO in his impugned order dated 07.05.2025 needs to be set aside.
10. Though the submission looks appealing on a first blush, on a deeper consideration, we are not convinced by the same for the simple reason that as can be seen from paragraphs 26-29 reproduced above this Court in its order dated 04.02.2025 had decided the batch of appeals by remanding the matter to the AO for determining surviving period in respect of individual notices issued under Section 148, which would necessarily be guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC Online SC 2693 and of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr, 2025:DHC:547-DB.
11. While carrying out such exercise, the AO was to render his finding as to whether the impugned re-assessment notices would survive and it shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse order that may be passed in accordance with law.
12. Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon paragraph 32 of the order of this Court states that various additional contentions in support of the challenge to the order were raised by the petitioner herein but the AO has only dealt with the issue of surviving period and not considered the additional contentions, which is unfair. Suffice to state this Court had made it clear that Court had only heard the parties in respect of issues that the Court had framed in its order dated 05.08.2025. Paragraph 32 reads as under:
13. Though the Court had confined it adjudication to the issues as flagged in the order dated 05.08.2024, the Court in paragraph 32 has reserved the right of the writ petitioners including the petitioner herein to raise additional contentions if need so arise, independently in accordance with law and subject to the outcome of exercise which the AO is liable to undertake in terms of the directions.
14. The above would reveal that it was obligatory on the part of the AO to decide the issue by passing a speaking order dealing with impact of the judgments in Rajiv Bansal (supra) and Ram Balram (supra) on the impugned re-assessment notices and to give a finding whether impugned notices would survive or be liable to be recalled.
15. It is a fact that the AO in the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 has upheld the income assessed under Section 147 of the Act in the order dated 29.05.2023 (AY), The counsel for the petitioner does concede that the order dated 07.05.2025 is a speaking order dealing with impact of the above judgments on the re-assessment notice.
16. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the other contentions which were part of the submissions have not been dealt with by the AO in the order dated 07.05.2025. This plea need to be considered in what has been observed by this Court in Kanwaljeet Kaur (supra) that any adverse order to be agitated in accordance with law.
17. It is undisputed the petitioner has a remedy against the order dated 29.05.2023 before CIT (Appeals). The petitioner is not precluded from raising all pleas before the appellate authority, that is CIT (Appeals), which is a more efficacious remedy. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 6704 of 2013. “15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See: State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499). xxxxxxxxxx
19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
20. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar‟s wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case, neither has the assesseewrit petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case.
21. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon.”
18. In terms of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek such remedy as available in law in terms of the judgment of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) against the order dated 29.05.2023 read with order dated 07.05.2025.
19. The petition is dismissed, along with the pending application.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 20, 2025