2025 (3) TMI 534 - HC - Income Tax

Additions u/s 68 - validity of invocation of Section 148 - HELD THAT - In the absence of any sustainable jurisdictional challenge having been raised coupled with the fact that an identical issue is presently engaging the attention of the Tribunal we are of the considered opinion that we would neither be justified nor would it be appropriate for us to entertain a writ challenge at this stage and thus pre-empt the view that the appellate authority may take upon hearing respective sides. There would thus be no justification for us to either interdict that process or to render our own opinion on the merits of the additions made and which would undoubtedly have an impact on the pending appeal. Stay of demand and deposits that the petitioner may be constrained to make during the pendency of pursuing the appellate remedy goes those are issues which are clearly separate and distinct from the challenge which stands mounted here. In case the petitioner be aggrieved by any order that the respondents may choose to pass while considering its application for stay or for placement of the demand in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal those issues shall be open to be canvassed independently.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered by the Court in this judgment include:

• Whether the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were justified and met the necessary preconditions.
• Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was valid.
• Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition given the ongoing appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of demand or deposit during the pendency of the appeal.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The petitioner contended that the additions made under Section 68 were not sustainable as they did not meet the preconditions for such additions. The Court noted that this issue was part of the ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2021-22. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the additions, recognizing that the Tribunal was the appropriate forum to address this issue.

2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148

The petitioner had previously challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22, questioning the validity of invoking Section 148. The Court acknowledged the existence of interim orders related to these proceedings but did not delve into the merits, as the matter was already under consideration by the Tribunal.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in light of the Tribunal proceedings

The Court considered whether it was appropriate to entertain the writ petition given the ongoing appeal before the Tribunal. It concluded that intervening at this stage would be inappropriate, as it would preempt the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal was the suitable authority to hear the appeal and render a decision on the merits of the additions.

4. Stay of Demand and Deposit during Appeal

The Court addressed the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a stay of demand or deposit during the pendency of the appeal. It clarified that this was a separate issue from the writ petition's primary challenge. The Court stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by any order regarding the stay or demand, these issues could be independently contested.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the following principles:

• The High Court should not entertain a writ petition when the same issues are under consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the merits of the case.
• All questions on the merits remain open for consideration by the Tribunal, and the petitioner retains the right to challenge any actions taken by the respondents in the recovery of demands.
• The issues related to the stay of demand or deposit are distinct from the primary challenge and can be pursued independently if the petitioner is aggrieved by any related orders.

The Court concluded by dismissing the writ petition, leaving all questions on merits open for the Tribunal's consideration and allowing the petitioner to independently address any grievances related to stay or demand orders during the appeal's pendency.