Cwjc/5602/2019 Of Krrish Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5602 of 2019 ====================================================== Krrish Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the CompaniesAct, 1956 having its office at 4th Floor N.P. Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road,Patna through its Director Saket Sureka son of Shri. Shyam Ratan Surekaresident of 706, Pushpanjali Venkatesh Budh Marg, Near Land DevelopmentBank P.O.- GPO and P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.Commissioner of Income Tax I, having its office at Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 2.Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna. 3.Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2, 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 SRIVASTAVA ORAL 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 12.01.2018issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2,Patna in purported exercise of power under Section 133(6) ofthe Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’),impugned at Annexure-2; the notice dated 30.03.2018 of thesaid authority for the assessment year 2011-12 issued underSection 148 of ‘the Act’ impugned at Annexure-03 series Archana/Surendra/-U together with the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna for the assessmentyear 2011-12 impugned at Annexure-07 series. 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 extra-ordinary indulgence and thus whilereserving our opinion on the inter-party dispute, we shall allowthe petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy so available tohim 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 thatthe petitioner was pursuing the matter before the Court. This disposes of the writ petition. (Jyoti Saran, J) ( Arvind Srivastava, J)