2025 (3) TMI 1170 - HC - Income Tax

Writ of Mandamus sought to the ITAT that it should admit the additional evidence tendered by the Petitioner and consider the same - HELD THAT - The record shows that by order ITAT permitted documents from Serial Nos.1 to 7 to be produced thereby by implication reject the production of the other documents. This order is no where challenged in this petition. Still it is almost urged that we should ignore the order dated 29th January 2025 and still issue a Mandamus to ITAT to admit and consider the remaining documents. This according to us is not permissible in absence of any challenge to the order dated 29th January 2025. In any event if the Petitioner is ultimately aggrieved by the orders that ITAT will make in the appeal including the non-consideration of any relevant or any crucial documents the Petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy against such order if and when made. However based upon the allegations in the petition or the kind of reliefs applied for we are afraid we would not be justified in entertaining this petition and stopping the further proceedings before the ITAT. WP dismissed.

Summary

In the High Court of Bombay, Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain presided over the case where the petitioner, represented by Ms. Shilpa Goel, sought a series of writs of mandamus against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The petitioner requested the court to direct the ITAT to admit additional evidence in ITA No.1926/Mum/2015 and related matters, allow cross-examination of the assessee, and verify the genuineness of documents used by the assessee. The petitioner also sought to maintain the status quo on the proceedings and requested interim reliefs.The court noted that the ITAT had already allowed some documents to be produced by an order dated January 29, 2025, which was not challenged in this petition. The court emphasized that without challenging this order, it could not issue a mandamus to ITAT to admit further documents. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had alternative remedies if aggrieved by future ITAT orders.Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without costs, stating that it would not interfere with the ongoing ITAT proceedings. The court instructed that this order should not be used to seek adjournments or interrupt the ITAT hearing. All parties were directed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.