Writ petitions cannot re-agitate ITAT orders already adjudicated in statutory appeals.

The appellant challenged Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders concerning assessment years 2006–07 to 2011–12.

It had previously challenged those orders through appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were disposed of by judgment dated 9 October 2025.

The appellant also filed a writ petition challenging the vires of Section 80AC, which was dismissed.

It then filed fresh writ petitions challenging the ITAT orders; the Single Judge dismissed them on grounds including merger and res judicata.

The appellant brought these intra-court appeals against that dismissal.

1. Whether writ petitions challenging the ITAT orders were maintainable after the appellant had pursued appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petitions on grounds including merger, res judicata, and abuse of process warranted appellate interference.

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act provides the appellate route for challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the Court held that a writ petition challenging such an order was not maintainable where that statutory appellate route had been pursued.

The doctrines of merger and res judicata preclude re-agitation of matters that have attained finality through prior proceedings.

Repeatedly seeking to re-agitate a concluded issue through fresh proceedings may also constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

The appellant had already challenged the ITAT orders in Section 260A appeals, which had been disposed of, and had also unsuccessfully pursued a separate writ petition concerning Section 80AC.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the fresh writ petitions an attempt to re-agitate issues that had attained finality.

It held that any further challenge to the earlier appellate judgment lay by appeal to the Supreme Court or by review, rather than through fresh writ petitions.

The Court therefore found no error or illegality in the Single Judge’s decision.

It imposed costs of ₹10,000 in each appeal, payable to the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Clerk’s Association within four weeks of receipt of the order.

The connected interim applications were also dismissed.