Shahid Mohammad Vs PCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Shahid Mohammad’s writ appeal against the Single Judge’s refusal to entertain his assessment challenge because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available. The assessment order dated 24.03.2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act, involved an addition of ₹2,60,45,924 to total income. The appellant alleged denial of a hearing, lack of jurisdiction and a predetermined and prejudicial approach by the Assessing Authority. He argued that these grounds justified exercising writ jurisdiction despite the alternative remedy. The Revenue submitted that jurisdictional objections and alleged non-compliance with natural justice could be effectively adjudicated in an appeal under Section 246(A).
The Court found that the appellant had not shown that the appellate authority could not adjudicate his grounds and held that huge tax liability could not justify entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution where an efficacious statutory remedy existed. It therefore upheld the Single Judge’s order dated 27.02.2024. Before deciding the appeal, the Court also recalled the portion of its earlier order dated 29.09.2026 recording the Revenue counsel’s statement that the assessment proceedings had been dropped, after counsel explained that the statement had inadvertently been made by referring to the record of another writ appeal. The appellant did not object to that recall.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. I.A. No. 2/2026, this is an application for modification / recall of the order dated 29.09.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to inadvertent mistake, he made a statement on 29.09.2026 that assessment proceeding initiated against the appellant has already been dropped, but he made such a statement looking at a different record i.e. Writ Appeal No. 275/2026. Hence, he prays for recall of the said order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not have any objection to the prayer for recall.
4. Accordingly, the portion of the order recording the statement of learned counsel for the respondents to the extent that, “It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the assessment proceeding initiated against the appellant has already been dropped, thus, no cause of action survives to pursue the writ appeal.” stands recalled.
5. I.A. No. 2/2026 is disposed of.
6. This intra-court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPT No. 178 of 2023 whereby learned Single Bench refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
7. In the writ petition, the appellant had assailed the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144-B of the Income Tax Act on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and the Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order with predetermined and prejudicial mind making irrelevant observation and made an addition of ₹2,60,45,924/- to the total income.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no bar for this Court to issue prerogative writ, even when efficacious remedy is available to the appellant against the order impunged. Since the assessment order was wholely without jurisdiction and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, impugned order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure A-1) is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel representing the Revenue submits that the appellant has an efficacious remedy under Section 246 (A) of the Income Tax Act to file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority raising the ground of jurisdiction as well as non-compliance of principle of natural justice. Since an efficacious remedy is available to the appellant to challenge the order impugned in the writ petition, the writ petition was rightly dismissed. He further submits that the grounds raised in the writ petition can be adjudicated by the appellate authority effectively. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.
10. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the appellant has a remedy under Section 246 (A) of the Income Tax Act before the Commissioner (Appeals) to file an appeal within 30 days from date of order of assessment. The appellant without resorting to the same, had moved this Court by filing writ appeal. No ground was taken in the writ petition stating that the grounds taken in the writ petition could not have been adjudicated by the appellate Authority. Further, huge tax liability cannot be a ground to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, where an efficacious statutory remedy is available. Learned Single Judge considering the same has rightly refused to exercise its discretion and dismissed the writ petition with certain observations.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
