Cwjc/5543/2019 Of Manokamna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5543 of 2019 ====================================================== Manokamna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under theCompanies Act, 1956 having its office at 202, N.P. Centre New Dak BunglowRoad, Patna through its director Prashant Banka , Son of late Pawan KumarBanka resident of Devi Market Chowk, P.O. Jhau Ganj and P.S. Chowk,District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax I, having its office at CentralRevenue Building, Bir Chan Patel Marg, Patna.Revenue Building, Bir Chan Patel Marg, Patna. 2.Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax OSD, Ward No. 2, Patna. 3.Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. D.V.Pathy, Adv. Ms. Manju Jha, Adv.For the Respondent/s: Ms. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr. SC Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVAORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN) 215-04-2019 Heard Mr. D.V. Pathy, learned Counsel for thepetitioner and Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the Department. The petitioner questions the notice dated 28.03.2018by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax OSD, Ward No.-2, Patna in purported exercise of power under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), impugnedat Annexure-4 together with the order dated 22.12.2018 passedby the said authority for the assessment year 2011-12 impugnedat Annexure-10 series. Archana/Surendra/- U Though Mr. Pathy, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner raises issue regarding absence of pre-requisite toexercise such power but bearing note of the conduct of thepetitioner as reflected from the assessment order, we are notpersuaded to grant indulgence and thus while reserving ouropinion on the inter-party dispute, we shall allow the petitionerto exhaust alternative remedy so available to him in law. It goes without saying that in case the petitionerwould prefer an appeal within six weeks from todayaccompanied with the petition for condonation of delay, theAppellate Authority shall consider and dispose of the same inaccordance with law and on its own merits bearing in mind that the petitioner was pursuing the matter before the Court. This disposes of the writ petition. (Jyoti Saran, J) ( Arvind Srivastava, J)