HC Can’t Issue a Mandamus to ITAT to Admit and Consider Additional Evidence if Order of ITAT Wasn’t Challenged | HC

Case Details: Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4) vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 356 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• Ms Shilpa Goel, Adv. for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The writ petition was filed by the CIT seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the ITAT to consider and admit the additional evidence filed in ITA No.1926/Mum/2015 & connected matters.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus permitting CIT to call upon the assessee to file crucial documents and to conduct cross-examination to rebut the evidence sought to be relied upon by the assessee in respect of the subject matter involved in IT A No.1926/Mum/2015 & connected matters.

(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing ITAT to ascertain the veracity/ genuineness of the documents relied upon by the assessee before the ITAT, especially in view of the fact that Bombay High Court has taken a prima facie view regarding the business model of the assessee; and

(d) Direct the ITAT to maintain the status quo in relation to ITA No.1926/Mum/2015 and related matters until the disposal of the instant Petition.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petition was replete with allegations against the assessee of suppressing facts, etc. Still, the assessee was not made a Respondent in this petition, and it was moved urgently to obtain ad-interim reliefs since the arguments before the ITAT were ongoing. This was not proper, and the petition could be dismissed on this ground alone.

The petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus to the ITAT to admit and consider the additional evidence tendered by the CIT. However, the record shows that by order dated 29 January 2025, the ITAT permitted documents to be produced, which means, by implication, that it rejected the production of the other documents regarding which a mandamus is now applied.

This order, dated 29 January 2025, was not challenged in this petition. Still, it was almost urged that the court ignore it and issue a mandamus to ITAT to admit and consider the remaining documents. According to the court, this was not permissible without any challenge to the order.

Supposing the CIT was ultimately aggrieved by the orders that ITAT may issue in the appeal, including the non-consideration of any relevant or crucial documents. The CIT had an alternative and effective remedy against such orders if and when they were made.