> v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Ors

$~56 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13415/2025INDERPAL SINGH SAYAN .....Petitioner Through:Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr Advocatewith Mr Shivang Bansal, Advocate. versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS. .....RespondentThrough:Mr.GauravGupta,SSC,Mr.Shivendra Singh, Mr. Yojit Pareek,JSCs, Mr. Surya Jindal, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R%02.09.2025CM APPL. 55008/2025(Exemption) 1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13415/2025 & CM APPL. 55007/2025 (Stay) 3.This petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,order or direction in the nature of certiorariorder or direction in the nature of certiorari i) quashing the re-assessment proceedinginitiated by R-2 by way of notice-dated17.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Actii) order-dated 26.07.2023 passed by R-2u/s 148A(d) of the Act andinitiated by R-2 by way of notice-dated17.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Actii) order-dated 26.07.2023 passed by R-2u/s 148A(d) of the Act and iii) notice-dated 26.07.2023 issued by R-2 u/s 148 of the Act, b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceeding conducted by R-1 u/s 148of the Act , c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the assessment order dated 18.03.2025passed in pursuance to such illegal proceeding byR-1 u/s 147 r/w section 1448 of the Act for AY2018-19, d) writ of prohibition restraining the respondentsfrom recovering the demand raised in pursuanceto such proceeding and” 4.In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.07.2023passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); noticedated 17.03.2022 under Section 148 A(b) of the Act and another noticedated 26.07.2023 under Section 148 of the Act. 5.We have been informed that pursuant to the notice dated 26.07.2023issued under Section 148 of the Act, an assessment order dated 18.03.2025has been passed. 6.We are also informed by Ms Prem Lata Bansal, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] along with anapplication for stay before the Assessing Officer. According to her, the onlyreason to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court is that before passingorder under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148, therespondent no.2 has taken approval of the Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax but as 3 years have elapsed from the end of the AY 2018-19,the same required approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax as such the proceedings are without jurisdiction. She concedes to thefact that the additional grounds filed by the petitioner in the appeal before the CIT(A), are the ones which have been urged by her in this petition.. the CIT(A), are the ones which have been urged by her in this petition.. 7.If that be so, we are of the view that once the petitioner has invokedthe jurisdiction of the CIT(A) with an application for stay before theAssessing Officer, urging the same grounds, as sought to be urged beforethis Court, appropriate shall be for the petitioner to pursue the remedyinvoked before the CIT(A). Insofar as, the judgments relied upon by MsBansal are concerned, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, W.P. (L.) No. 33793/2024, theBombay High Court noting the fact that an appeal has been filed against theAssessment Order, held the petitioner can still file the writ petition andpassed order of stay till proceedings before the Appellate Authority aredecided. The said case is distinguishable, inasmuch as, in the present case,apart from filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the petitioner herein has alsofiled an application for stay before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner hasurged, similar grounds as sought to be urged before us. Appropriate is forthe petitioner to press the stay application before Assessing Officer. 8.Insofar as, the judgment in the case of Red Chilli International Salesv. Income-tax Officer, decided by the Supreme Court being [2023] 146taxmann.com 224(SC) is concerned, therein the challenge was made to anorder passed by the High Court rejecting the writ petition on the ground ofalternative remedy. 9.Suffice to state, as the petitioner has already availed the remedy ofappeal before the CIT(A) and also filed an application for stay before theAssessing Officer. Even the appeal before the CIT(A) includes the groundsas have been urged in this petition. 10.In view of above, the petition is closed. The pending application is also disposed of having become infructuous. SEPTEMBER 02, 2025M V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J