[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Muthusamy Murugesan vs The Income Tax Officer on 12 March, 2026

                                                                                           W.A.No.489 of 2026

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED:          12.03.2026

                                                         CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                   AND
                                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                              WA No.489 of 2026
                                       and CMP Nos.4789 and 4792 of 2026

                     Muthusamy Murugesan
                     S/o. Muthusamy
                     518-A, Sathy Road Erode,
                     Erode, Tamilnadu – 638003.

                                                                                     Appellant(s)

                                                              Vs

                     1. The Income Tax Officer
                        Assessment Unit,
                        National Faceless Assessment Centre,
                        Income Tax Department,
                        Ministry of Finance, Room No.402,
                        2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
                        Delhi-110 003.

                     2. The Income Tax Officer
                        Ward 1(1), No15,
                        Gandhiji Road,
                        Erode – 638001.

                                                                                     Respondent(s)




                     ______________
                     Page 1 of 10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )
                                                                                            W.A.No.489 of 2026

                     PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
                     order in Writ Petition No. 10701 of 2024 dated 15.12.2025 on the file
                     of this Court and allow this writ appeal and thus render justice


                                  For Appellant(s):       Mr.G.Baskar

                                  For Respondent(s): Mrs.M.Sheela
                                                     Senior Standing Counsel For IT
                                                     And Mr.H.Siddarth
                                                     Junior Standing Counsel For IT

                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Calling into question the legality and veracity of the order

dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.10701 of 2024, the unsuccessful petitioner has filed this writ

appeal.

2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking issuance of a

writ of certiorari to quash the assessment order dated 19.3.2024,

by which a sum of Rs.6,20,08,350/- together with processing

charge of Rs.34,70,942/- has been disallowed as unexplained

expenses in the return of income filed.

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge

was that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the

principles of natural justice and that the transactions made by the

appellant with Vishal Bharath Processing Mill pertain to HUF and not

with M.Sivakumar, who had also income from the HUF, in his

individual capacity.

4. The respondents refuted the aforesaid submission by filing

a detailed counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge to the

effect that though opportunity was afforded to the appellant, he

failed to provide invoices and, therefore, the assessing authority

was constrained to pass the impugned assessment order.

5. After considering the aforesaid submissions, the learned

Single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding that disputed

questions of fact are involved and that the appellant has an

alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 250 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant was granted 30 days time to

file an appeal.

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. In the case at hand, the order impugned in the writ petition

is an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8. It is the specific case of the respondents that the appellant

failed to provide the invoices before the assessing authority within

the stipulated time and, therefore, the assessment order was

passed after following due process of law. It is further stated that

the appellant had transactions with a proprietary concern (HUF) and

not the individual, who also received income from HUF. These are

certainly disputed facts and in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this court

cannot delve into the same.

9. That apart, it is not as if the appellant is remediless. The

appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy available. The

learned Single Judge granted the appellant 30 days time to file ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

appeal. However, the appellant without filing a statutory appeal,

filed this writ appeal.

10. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the observation

made by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chhabil Dass

Agarwal1, wherein it has been held thus:

“10. In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and decision is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act.

11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not

1(2014) 1 SCC 603 ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 499]).

15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433, and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana [(1985) 3 SCC 267] this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from “Caesar to Caesar's wife” the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.” [emphasis supplied]

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

The Apex Court emphatically held that the assessee cannot be

permitted to abandon the machinery provided under the Income-

tax Act and invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

11. The Income-tax Act, 1961 is a self-contained code and it

provides a complete machinery for assessment/reassessment of

tax. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion,

was right in not interfering with the impugned assessment order.

We find no exceptional circumstances warranting invocation of writ

jurisdiction.

For the aforegiven reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim

applications stand closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 12.03.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

To:

1. The Income Tax Officer Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No.402, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi-110 003.