High Court Refuses Article 226 Intervention as Fact-Based Tax Dispute Requires Statutory Appellate Remedy

By | September 28, 2026
0 Comment

High Court Refuses Article 226 Intervention as Fact-Based Tax Dispute Requires Statutory Appellate Remedy

High Court Refuses Article 226 Intervention as Fact-Based Tax Dispute Requires Statutory Appellate Remedy

Issue

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an assessment order where the grievance involves factual appreciation regarding year-specific additions, or relegate the assessee to the statutory appellate authority under Section 246A.

Facts

  • The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under Section 143 making additions in relation to transactions allegedly not pertaining to the relevant assessment year.
  • Instead of filing a statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246A, the assessee directly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • The grievance raised by the assessee required a detailed examination and appreciation of factual evidence and arguments to determine the correct assessment year for the disputed transactions.

Decision

  • The High Court held that disputes requiring factual evaluation and detailed evidentiary arguments must be raised before the statutory Appellate Authority [In favor of Revenue].
  • The High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246A was available [In favor of Revenue].

Key Takeaways

  • Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will generally not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 against assessment orders when an effective statutory appeal mechanism under Section 246A exists.
  • Factual Disputes Excluded from Writ Scope: Issues requiring appreciation of evidence, such as determining the correct assessment year of a transaction, are factual in nature and must be adjudicated by appellate authorities rather than through writ jurisdiction.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ms. Anya Traders
v.
Assessment Unit Income-tax Department
Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 6633 of 2026
CM APPL. Nos. 32612 & 32613 of 2026
MAY  14, 2026
Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Ashima Acharya, Advs. for the Petitioner. Anurag Ojha, SSC, Ms. Hemlata Rawat and V. K. Saksena, JSCs for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 24.03.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned assessment order suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as the Assessing Officer (AO) has made additions in relation to certain transactions, which do not relate to the assessment year in question.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner for some time, we are of the view that the petitioner has literally tried to convert this Court in an Appellate Forum, that too for appreciating the facts and evidence.
4. We are of the view that the grievance, which the petitioner has raised and the arguments which have been canvassed at the bar are required to be advanced before the Appellate Authority, which is meant for and empowered by the law so to do.
5. We do not find it to be a case worth warranting interference of this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
7. In case petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merit without raising any objection of limitation.
8. The petition along with the pending application(s) is disposed.