Dismissed¶22

Surinder Virender Kathuria v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Bombay HC3 Mar 2025WP/12474/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surinder Virender Kathuria v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department; WRIT PETITION NO. 12474 OF 2024; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; decided 03 March 2025; writ petition dismissed on alternate remedy ground; appeal already instituted against assessment order dated 5 March 2024; Sections 114 and 144B Income Tax Act 1961; inadequate opportunity; principles of natural justice; contentions left open to appellate authority; no cost order; advocates Laukik Palekar, Akshay Zantye, Akhileshwar Sharma, Shradha Worlikar.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the Appeal already instituted; all contentions of all parties left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance; Petition disposed of without any cost order. ¶22

Surinder Virender Kathuria vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petition should be entertained despite the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under the Act, which the Petitioner has already availed. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the Appeal already instituted against the impugned order.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

An alternate remedy of appeal was available under the Act and the Petitioner has already availed of it after instituting the Petition; the Petitioner incorrectly stated that no alternate remedy was available.

¶17

Key takeaways

All contentions of all parties, including the contentions raised in this Petition, are left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance.ratio¶22
Grievances regarding alleged inadequate time/opportunities and alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice are, at best, debatable and are best decided in the Appeal already instituted by the Petitioner.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 12474 of 2024, decided 03 March 2025: Petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 5 March 2024 under Sections 114 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petition was dismissed because an alternate remedy of appeal under the Act was available and had already been availed of by the Petitioner after instituting the Petition; the Petitioner's claim of having no alternate remedy was incorrect. Allegations of inadequate time/opportunities and non-compliance with natural justice were held to be, at best, debatable and best decided in the appeal already instituted. All contentions of all parties were left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance; no cost order.

¶1

14-WP-12474-2024.DOCX

¶2

Amol

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12474 OF 2024

¶5

Surinder Virender Kathuria …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assessment Unit Income Tax Department …Respondent

¶8

Mr Laukik Palekar , with Mr Akshay Zantye for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr Akhileshwar Sharma , with Mr Shradha Worlikar, for the Respondent.

¶10

AMOL

¶11

PREMNATH JADHAV

¶12

Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.03.04 14:57:27 +0530

¶13

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 03 March 2025

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

The Petitioner challenges assessment order dated 5 March 2024 under Sections 114 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax, 1961.

¶17

In paragraph 24, the Petitioner has incorrectly stated that he has no alternate remedy available. There is not only an alternate remedy of appeal available under the Act but the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, based on instructions states that the Petitioner has already availed of such remedy after the institution of this Petition. Besides, this is a matter where

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

14-WP-12474-2024.DOCX

¶20

the issue regarding alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice is, at the best, a debatable one.

¶21

The Petitioner alleges that inadequate time was granted. The Respondent by referring to the impugned order and the column “details of opportunity is given” submits that ample opportunities were granted to the Petitioner. We think that all those matters are best decided in the Appeal that the Petitioner has already instituted against the impugned order.

¶22

For the above reasons, we dismiss this Petition but with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue the Appeal already instituted. All contentions of all parties, including the contentions now raised in this Petition are however left open to be decided by the appellate authority in the first instance.

¶23

This Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any cost order.

¶24

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶25

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Surinder Virender Kathuria v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Virender Kathuria v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Allen Dsouza vs Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 7

Premchand Rajaram More and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretatry, School Edu. Dept. and Ors.

Ramchandra Namdev Vhanmane and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parmatma Steel Centre Proprietorship Jitendra M Jain vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

V R Creation vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds))

Skystar Clearing and Forwarding vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 6