Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Pending Appeal Bars Writ Even When Jurisdiction Is Questioned: Delhi HC Orders Disposal of Six-Year-Old Appeal Within Two Months
In M/s Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi [W.P.(C) 13737/2026, order dated 18.09.2026], the Delhi High Court held that where the assessee had already challenged the assessment order through the statutory appellate mechanism, it would ordinarily not be appropriate to simultaneously invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the challenge related to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. However, noticing that the assessee’s appeal had remained pending before the CIT(A) since January 2020, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months.
The petitioner-company challenged an assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. At the outset, the Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It was pointed out that the assessment order had been passed nearly seven years earlier and, more importantly, the assessee had already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 24.01.2020. That statutory appeal was still pending. According to the Revenue, an assessee could not pursue two parallel remedies by keeping the statutory appeal alive and simultaneously approaching the High Court against the very same assessment order.
The assessee, however, contended that its challenge was not merely against the merits of the additions made in the assessment. The challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who had passed the order. The assessee relied upon an earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 08.05.2024 rendered in ITA No. 124/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 3777/2022, concerning the assessee’s own case for AY 2015-16. It was contended that the High Court had already decided that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi did not possess jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. Therefore, when the jurisdictional issue stood concluded by a direct judgment in the assessee’s own case, the pendency of the statutory appeal should not prevent the High Court from setting aside the assessment order.
The Delhi High Court was nevertheless not persuaded to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Court observed that the assessee had already availed itself of the statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore, it was not inclined to examine the validity of the assessment directly under Article 226. The decision demonstrates that the existence of a jurisdictional objection does not automatically entitle an assessee to bypass or abandon the statutory appellate proceedings, particularly where the assessee itself has already invoked that remedy.
At the same time, the Court did not ignore the substantial delay in disposal of the appeal. The appeal filed on 24.01.2020 had remained pending for more than six years. The Court also took note of the assessee’s contention that the jurisdictional controversy had already been settled by the judgment dated 08.05.2024 in its own case. Accordingly, while disposing of the writ petition, the High Court requested the CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within two months, provided the assessee placed a certified copy of the High Court’s order before the appellate authority along with an application seeking early hearing.
The assessee was expressly permitted to place a copy of the earlier judgment dated 08.05.2024 before the CIT(A). The appellate authority was directed to decide not only the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer but also the other issues raised by the assessee in the appeal. Therefore, although the High Court did not directly grant the substantive relief of quashing the assessment order, it ensured that the jurisdictional objection would receive an expeditious consideration at the statutory appellate stage.
The High Court also entered an important caveat. It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s contentions. The CIT(A) would be free to independently determine whether the earlier judgment dated 08.05.2024 was applicable to the facts of the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the earlier decision in the assessee’s own case was not mechanically declared applicable to the subsequent year merely because the parties and the jurisdictional objection appeared similar. Its applicability would depend upon the relevant facts, jurisdictional orders and circumstances governing the year under appeal.
The judgment reiterates the settled distinction between the existence of writ jurisdiction and the High Court’s discretion to exercise it. An alternative statutory remedy does not create an absolute bar to a writ petition, especially where the order is passed without jurisdiction, natural justice is violated or the validity of a statutory provision is questioned. Nevertheless, the High Court may refuse to exercise that jurisdiction where the assessee has already chosen the appellate route and the same controversy can effectively be decided by the appellate authority.
Author’s Comments
The case presents a slightly unusual situation because the assessee was not merely asserting a general jurisdictional defect; it relied upon an earlier Delhi High Court judgment in its own case concerning the jurisdiction of the same Assessing Officer. Even then, the Court preferred that the issue should first be examined by the CIT(A), since the assessee’s appeal was already pending. Therefore, the decision should not be understood as laying down that a writ can never be entertained against an order lacking jurisdiction. It only indicates that where the statutory appeal has already been filed and remains capable of granting complete relief, the High Court may decline to permit parallel proceedings.
The most valuable relief granted to the assessee was the time-bound direction. An appeal pending since January 2020 cannot be allowed to remain undecided indefinitely, particularly when the assessment itself is alleged to have been passed by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The assessee must now file the certified copy of this order together with an early-hearing application before the CIT(A). Once that condition is fulfilled, the appeal—including the fundamental jurisdictional ground—is required to be decided within two months.
Cases Discussed/Relied Upon
- Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) — ITA 124/2020 and W.P.(C) 3777/2022, judgment dated 08.05.2024, AY 2015-16 — The petitioner relied upon this earlier judgment in its own case to contend that Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi lacked jurisdiction to assess it. The Court permitted the petitioner to place the judgment before the CIT(A), while leaving its applicability to the facts of the present assessment year for independent determination.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 31.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’).
2. Mr. Anant Mann, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition impugns an assessment order which was passed way back on 31.12.2019, and that too when the petitioner has already availed statutory highlighting that such appeal is pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) since 24.01.2020, he argued that in any event, the assessee cannot avail or pursue two remedies simultaneously.
3. At this point of time, Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court on the issue of jurisdiction, that too when this Court has already held in petitioner’s favour that the respondent – Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1), Delhi does not have jurisdiction to assess the petitioner.
4. He invited Court’s attention towards the judgment dated 08.05.2024 delivered in ITA 124/2020 and W.P.(C) 3777/2022 (Annexure P-11) for Assessment Year 2015-16 passed in petitioner’s own case and argued that when there is a direct judgment of this Court in petitioner’s own case, the statutory remedy of appeal should not come in petitioner’s way of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Because, petitioner’s constitutional rights so also statutory rights have been infringed by the arbitrary action of the respondent.
5. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. However, considering that the petitioner’s appeal is pending since January 2020 and as claimed by the petitioner, the issue on jurisdiction al aspect has been set at rest by this Court, vide its judgment dated 08.05.2024, we request the CIT(A) to decide petitioner ’s appeal within a period of two months, in case the petitioner places a certified copy of the instant order before the Appellant Authority alongwith an early hearing application.
7. The petitioner shall be free to place a copy of the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court before CIT(A) also, so that he can decide the appeal on the issue of jurisdiction as well as the other issues which the petitioner has canvassed before him.
8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
10. Needless to observe that we have not pronounced upon the merits or otherwise of the petitioner’s contentions. The CIT(A) will be free to take an independent view of the petitioner’s contentions in so far as the applicability of the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court on the extant facts is concerned.
