Application to amend writ petition was rejected as the issue was rendered purely academic.

By | August 4, 2026
0 Comment

Application to amend writ petition was rejected as the issue was rendered purely academic.

Issue

Whether an application seeking to amend a writ petition to challenge Section 147A should be allowed in light of a Supreme Court order remitting connected matters, when the original writ petition had already been dismissed and the issue was rendered academic.

Facts

  • The petitioner sought to amend its writ petition to challenge Section 147A and connected provisions of the Income-tax Act.

  • The application relied on an order dated April 10, 2026, passed by the Supreme Court in a connected batch of appeals.

  • In that order, the Supreme Court set aside High Court judgments that favored assessees and remitted the matters back to the respective High Courts with liberty for assessees to amend their writ petitions.

  • However, the petitioner’s writ petition had already been dismissed earlier by the High Court.

  • Furthermore, the underlying issue sought to be challenged had been rendered academic due to a subsequent statutory amendment.

Decision

  • The High Court noted that while the Supreme Court allowed liberty to amend writ petitions in pending remitted cases, the present writ petition stood already dismissed.

  • It held that since the issue was rendered academic by subsequent legislative amendment, the application to amend the writ petition was misconceived.

  • Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Dismissed Proceedings Cannot Be Revived via Interlocutory Applications: Liberty granted by higher courts to amend pleadings applies to active or remitted proceedings, not to petitions that have already reached final dismissal.

  • Academic Issues Will Not Be Entertained: Courts will not permit amendments to raise challenges against statutory provisions if subsequent legislative changes have rendered the underlying dispute purely academic.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Synokem Pharmaceuticals Ltd
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 16353 of 2024
JULY  7, 2026
Sandeep Sapra, Adv. for the Petitioner. Puneet Rai, SSC, Ashvini Kumar and Rishabh Nangia, JSCs for the Respondent.
ORDER
CM APPL. 40729/2026 (for amendment of the petition o/b petitioner)
1. The matter comes up for consideration of an application moved by the petitioner, qua which learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the batch of appeals filed both by the assessees and by the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘UOI’) were heard by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and vide order dated 10.04.2026, the matter has been remanded with a direction to this Court to consider the effect of the amendment in Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’) which has been introduced by the Act No. 4 of 2026.
2. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the application moved by the petitioner is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, Delhi High Court vide judgment in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024]  469 ITR 657 (Delhi)/ (2024) DHC 8330 DB, has already held that after introduction of Section 151A in Act of 1961, the Faceless Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘FAO’) and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO’) both had the concurrent jurisdiction and notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 can be issued by either of these two officers.
3. He emphasised that this is a matter of fact that the writ petitions filed by the assessees were decided against them by the Delhi High Court and that the assessees’ appeals against the judgment(s) of Delhi High Court were pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
4. He further submitted that, a perusal of paragraph no. 22 and 23 of the order dated 10.04.2026 clearly reveals that only the orders in appeals filed by the department in which the High Court had held in favour of the assessee, have been set aside while granting the liberty to the assessees to examine the retrospectivity of the amendment introduced under Section 147A of the Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.
6. It does not need much deliberation that what has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 (No. 4 of 2026), by way of amendment to Section 147A is, that the FAO and the JAO both have concurrent jurisdiction. And that is precisely what has been held by this Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
7. True it is, many other High Courts had taken a divergent view and held that notice under Section 148 could have been issued only by NFAC. Challenging such judgments of different High Courts, the revenue had preferred SLPs/appeals before Hon’ble the Supreme Court contending that both the FAO and JAO hold the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
8. Before Hon’ble the Apex Court could decide the issue the Act no. 4 of 2026 brought in an amendment and Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the batch of connected appeals (both by the assessees and Revenue) was apprised of the said amendment and Hon’ble the Supreme Court disposed of assessees appeals, as can be discerned from reading the order dated 10.04.2026.
9. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of reasoning given by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.04.2026:
“22. Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOs lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.
23. The assessees are granted liberty to amend their writ petitions, if so advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of this order, so as to enable them to lay challenge to Section 147A of the IT Act, as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, or to any other connected or consequential provision.
xxx xxx xxx
27. Finally, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High courts, there shall be an interim stay of further assessment/reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the High Courts.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Above part of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court more particularly paragraph no. 22 ibid leaves no manner of ambiguity that the appeals filed by the Union of India alone were allowed, only to the limited extent of setting aside of the judgements of the High Court on account of subsequent legislative amendment introduced under Section 147A of the Act, however, with a liberty to the assessees to amend the writ petitions before respective High Court to challenge the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment introduced vide Act no. 4 of 2026.
11. So far as the present petition is concerned, the writ petition had been dismissed by this Court and whatever little remained to be argued has been washed away by the introduction of the above referred amendment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner is misconceived. The same is, therefore, rejected.