Karnataka HC Disposes Writ as Alternate Remedy U/s. 260A Was Available

Rama Reddy Dhasharatha Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

The Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ petition after the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it on the ground that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available to challenge the Tribunal’s order. The petitioner requested liberty to file an Income Tax Appeal (ITA). After hearing the respondents’ counsel, the Court accepted the memo, disposed of the writ petition, and granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available in law, subject to all just exceptions.

Plese note A statutory appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides an effective alternate remedy against every order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), provided the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The appeal lies before the jurisdictional High Court, which examines only legal issues and not pure findings of fact unless such findings are shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. As a settled principle, High Courts generally decline to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious remedy under Section 260A is available, except in exceptional circumstances such as violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision. Thus, Section 260A serves as the primary appellate mechanism for judicial review of ITAT orders involving substantial questions of law

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo which reads as under.

“The Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid Writ Petition, as the appeal remedy under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is available for challenging the Order of Tribunal. The Advocate for the Petitioner seeks liberty to file ITA (Income Tax Appeal) in the aforesaid case of the Petitioner.”

Upon hearing Mr. E. I. Sanmathi, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, the memo is accepted and the petition stands disposed of with liberty to avail remedy in law subject to all just exceptions.