2011 (1) TMI 1118 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition - Court passed an interim order that no final order shall be passed in the assessment, but AO passed a draft order under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act - Held that - Petitions are not maintainable when the core issues are same in the present writ petitions as well as in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ petitions on the same facts are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed outright.

Summary

Issues involved:
Multiple writ petitions seeking to quash orders passed under Section 144C and 144 of the Income Tax Act on grounds of illegality, unlawfulness, and lack of jurisdiction. The maintainability of second writ petitions for the same set of facts when earlier writ petitions were filed and interim orders were passed by the Court.

Analysis:
The High Court heard various writ petitions concerning orders passed under Section 144C and 144 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners sought writs in the nature of certiorari to quash these orders, alleging them to be illegal, unlawful, and without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the controversy in all these petitions was similar and decided to address them together for convenience. The petitioners had earlier filed separate writ petitions on the same facts, and the Court had passed interim orders in those cases, allowing assessment proceedings but prohibiting the passing of final orders until the next listing date.

The petitioners argued that despite the interim orders, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass draft orders under Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act. They contended that this action was in violation of the Court's directives. The Court referred to Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, which prohibits filing a second application on the same facts after rejection of an earlier application. Since the petitioners had filed second writ petitions based on the same facts, the Court held that these petitions were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that when the core issues were identical in both the present and earlier writ petitions, filing second petitions was not permissible.

Consequently, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions outright, citing their lack of maintainability due to being based on the same facts as the earlier petitions. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to pursue appropriate applications in the earlier writ petitions if advised to do so. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules and not filing repetitive petitions on identical issues, as it can lead to dismissal for lack of maintainability.