Ajay Rastogi),J v. Shekhawat/P.3/ 6696Cw10May11Fnl.doc

In the High Court of Judicature for RajasthanJaipur Bench, JaipurO R D E RS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6696/2010Hemant K. Maloo Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Alwar & Anr. Date Of Order :: 11/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by thepetitioner assailing the order dt.24.3.2010passed by the Assessing Authority for theassessment year 2001-02 in exercise of powersU/s 179(1) of Income Tax Act,1961, which isindisputably a revisable order U/s 264 of theIT Act. It appears from the record thatinitially order u/s. 179(1) of the Act waspassed by the Assessing Authority on10.7.2009, which was challenged by thepetitioner before the revisional authorityu/s.264 of the Act, but when the revisionalauthority failed to decide the revisionpetition, the petitioner approached this Courtby way of writ petition bearing No.9907/09,upon which this Court directed the revisionalauthority to decide the petition filed by thepetitioner within 15 days. In compliancethereof, the revisional authority decided the CW 6696/10 revision petition vide its order dt.17.9.09(Ann.11) remitting the matter back to theAssessing Authority with certain directions toconsider afresh in accordance with law. Incompliance thereof, the Assessing Authorityafter affording opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner, passed order afresh u/s.179(1) ofthe Act dt.24.3.2010 (Ann.1), which has beenassailed by the petitioner in the instantpetition. Counsel submits that finding which has been recorded in treating M/s. Adity VenturesLtd as Private Limited Company U/s 3(1)(iii)of the Companies Act is beyond the scope ofprovisions of the IT Act. Counsel has furthertried to persuade this Court that the findingis wholly perverse which requires interferenceby this Court. Indisputably the order being revisable U/s 264 of the Act; however, the submissionsmade before this Court are available for thepetitioner to raise before the revisionalauthority, who is supposed to examine the sameon merits while deciding the revisionpetition, if any preferred by the petitioner. In view of efficacious remedy ofrevision available to the petitioner u/s. 264 (3) of the Act, this Court is not inclined toexercise its inherent powers under Article 226of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/p.3/6696cw10May11Fnl.doc