Pending CIT(A) Appeal Bars Parallel Writ on AO Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

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