IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, JJ.
M/s Mandava Holdings Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary and others – Respondents
W.P.No.21770 of 2024
Decided On : 01-12-2025
ORDER :
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.
The present Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
“1) issue a Writ, Order of Direction more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, setting aside the Orders of the Lower Authorities as lacking in jurisdiction, being against the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell;
2) set aside the consequent orders and proceedings for recovery of demand including the consequent penalties levied;
3) and to pass such other order…”
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a non- banking financial company registered as a Core Investment Company with the Reserve Bank of India under Registration No. N-09.00438. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016, admitting a loss of Rs.89,88,52,472/-, which was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), accepting the returned loss.
3. Further, a search and seizure operation was conducted on 04.01.2018 in the Group of M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, which also covered the petitioner’s company. Pursuant thereto, a notice under Section 153 -A of the Act was issued on 22.01.2019 and in response to it, the petitioner filed its return for the assessment year 2016-17 on 16.02.2019, declaring the loss of Rs.89,88,52,472/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143 (3) read with Section 153 -A of the Act on 30.12.2019, making an addition of Rs.20,44,42,762/- towards disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, and assessed the loss at Rs.40,97,70,767/- by passing appropriate orders.
4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (for short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No.10362/2019-20 for the assessment year 2016-17. The CIT(A), by order, dt.08.12.2021, affirmed the assessment order and assailing the same, the petitioner filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘ ITA T’) in No.26/HYD/2022. Further, for the subsequent assessment year of 2017-18, for similar disallowance by the Assessing Authority, which was affirmed by the CIT(A), the petitioner filed an appeal in No.27/HYD/2022.
5. Both orders of the CIT(A) were challenged before the learned ITA T and the learned T, after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed both the said appeals i.e., .No.26/HYD/2022 and .No.27/HYD/ 2022, by a common order, dt.26.09.2022, affirming the orders of the CIT(A).
6. Now in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner assails the order passed by the learned ITA T in .No.26/HYD/2022, dt.26.09.2022, inter alia contending that the lower Appellate Authorities and the Assessing Authority have erroneously passed the orders without appreciating the factual issues in proper perspective and failed to consider the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. , (2023) SCC Online SC 481 = (2024) 2 SCC 433 and prayed to set aside the order of learned T in .No.26/HYD/2022, dt.26.09.2022 and also the orders of both the CIT(A) and Assessing Authority.
7. The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that since an effective alternate remedy of appeal under Section 260 -A of the Act is available before this Court, filing of the Writ Petition amounts to abuse of process of law and a misuse of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, as there is no arbitrariness, excess of jurisdiction, or violation of the principles of natural justice, and that the plea of lack of jurisdiction and alleged violation of natural justice is merely an attempt to bypass the statutory appellate remedy by making a feeble attempt to indirectly achieve what they could not achieve directly. The respondents also point out that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PCIT’s case (supra) was delivered on 24.04.2023 i.e., subs
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective statutory appellate remedy exists, as reaffirmed by case law.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
Writ petitions are not maintainable when an effective alternative remedy exists, emphasizing the principle of self-imposed limitations on High Court's jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that writ petitions challenging assessment orders may not be maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there i....
Writ petitions against statutory authority orders are typically not entertainable if adequate appeals exist under corresponding statutes without justifiable reasons for bypassing such remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act before seeking writ jurisdiction for assessment disputes.
Judicial prudence requires courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternate statutory remedies are available.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.