Telangana High Court Refuses to Entertain Writ Against Section 143(1) Intimation After Five-Year Delay — Assessee Directed to Approach ITAT Under Section 253

Case Reference

Paradise Food Court Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad & Another
Court: High Court of Telangana
Bench: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda
Challenge: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against intimation dated 11.11.2019 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Background and Context

The Income Tax Act, 1961 lays down a well-defined appellate structure for assessees aggrieved by orders or intimations passed by revenue authorities. Constitutional courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 have consistently held that this writ remedy is extraordinary in nature and must not be invoked as a substitute for available statutory appeals.

A recurring issue in income tax litigation involves the legal interplay between intimations issued under Section 143(1) and full-fledged scrutiny assessments conducted under Section 143(2) and Section 143(3). The central question — whether a Section 143(1) intimation retains independent legal existence once scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(2) are initiated and a regular assessment under Section 143(3) is concluded — has been examined in several judicial forums.

In Paradise Food Court Private Limited Vs DCIT, the Telangana High Court was called upon to address precisely this question. However, rather than ruling on the substantive jurisdictional issue, the Division Bench chose to dismiss the writ petition on the twin grounds of inordinate delay and non-exhaustion of statutory appellate remedies.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, Paradise Food Court Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging:

  • An intimation dated 11.11.2019 issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19; and
  • The continuation of Section 143(1) proceedings by the Department despite the initiation and conclusion of scrutiny assessment proceedings under Section 143(2) and Section 143(3).

The sequence of events, as placed before the Court, was as follows:

  1. The Department issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 23.09.2019, initiating scrutiny proceedings.
  2. The assessee responded to the said notice on 08.10.2019.
  3. Despite the pendency of scrutiny proceedings, the Department issued an intimation under Section 143(1) on 11.11.2019.
  4. A regular assessment order under Section 143(3) was ultimately passed on 31.03.2021, accepting the returns filed by the assessee.
  5. Certain errors in the Section 143(3) order led to rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, which were partially accepted by the Department, and separate appeals were filed against those proceedings.
  6. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the Section 143(1) intimation only on 25.09.2024 — a delay of 1,751 days.
  7. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.09.2025 solely on the ground of delay.
  8. Instead of approaching the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253, the assessee filed the present writ petition on 29.01.2026 — more than five years after the impugned intimation was issued.

Submissions by the Assessee

Counsel appearing for the assessee advanced the following legal arguments: