Bluepex Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Room

OD-10 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTI0N ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/240/2025 BLUEPEX VINIMOY PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, ROOM NO.6, KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 19[th] June, 2025. Appearance : Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Deep Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Swarbhanu Bhattacharya, Adv. ….for the petitioner Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the respondents 1.Challenging, inter alia, the assessment order dated 22[nd] September, 2022 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) in respect of the assessment year 2020-21, the instant writ petition has been filed. passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) in respect of the assessment year 2020-21, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2.The learned Advocate for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to the assessment order, would submit that in the instant case, although the Assessing Officer had referred the case for assessment of fair market value of 14 properties to the departmental valuation officer under Section 56 of the said Act, on 29[th] August, 2022 and although, no such report was received, the aforesaid assessment was made. According to him, the aforesaid order is not stainable in law. the assessment order, would submit that in the instant case, although the Assessing Officer had referred the case for assessment of fair market value of 14 properties to the departmental valuation officer under Section 56 of the said Act, on 29[th] August, 2022 and although, no such report was received, the aforesaid assessment was made. According to him, the aforesaid order is not stainable in law. 3.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and considered the materials on record. It would, however, reveal from the writ petition that the materials on record. It would, however, reveal from the writ petition that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal though particulars of such appeal has not been provided by the petitioner in the writ petition. This apart, the impugned order is of the year 2022. The present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order has been filed on 3[rd] April, 2025. There appears to be no explanation of delay. No disclosure has been made as regards the outcome of the stay application filed before the CIT Appeal. It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy and the extra-ordinary remedy simultaneously. 4.In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. 5.There will be no order as to costs. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)