2009 (10) TMI 59 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal before high court versus writ petition held that - the writ petitioner without exhausting the appeal remedy as provided under the statute has chosen to file the writ petitions challenging the final order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.11.2000 after six years on 14.6.2006. There is no proper reason given for the delay. In any event the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy provided under the statute - Both the writ petitions are therefore dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner has failed to pursue the alternative remedy under the statue and also on the ground of delay and laches which has not been explained

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without exhausting appeal remedy and delay in filing writ petitions.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to Writ Petitions filed to challenge final orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1984-85. The petitioner failed to appear during the proceedings, leading to the matter being taken up in their absence. The orders in question were passed by the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlights that under Section 260A(1) of the Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal if the case involves a substantial question of law.

The key issue addressed in the judgment is the failure of the writ petitioner to exhaust the appeal remedy provided under the statute before resorting to filing writ petitions. The court notes that the petitioner chose to file the writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's final order after a significant delay of six years without providing a valid reason for the delay. The judgment emphasizes that the alternative remedy of appeal under the statute should have been pursued before approaching the court through writ petitions.

Consequently, the court dismisses both writ petitions on the grounds of the petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed appeal procedure and the unexplained delay in filing the petitions. The judgment emphasizes that the lack of pursuing the alternative remedy and the delay constitute valid reasons for the dismissal of the writ petitions. No costs are awarded in this case.