Cwjc/5754/2014 Of Kaushal Kishore Gupta v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Muzzaffarpur, Bihar

10 20-08-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5754 of 2014 ====================================================== Kaushal Kishore Gupta, aged about 65 years, Partner of erstwhile firm M/S Govardhan Ram Ramashish Prasad, Purani Bazaar, Muzaffarpur, S/o Late Ramashish Prasad Gupta, Resident of Aam Gola Mai Sthan, P.O.- Ramana, P.S.- Kaji Mohhamadpur, District- Muzzafarpur, Bihar- 842002. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzzaffarpur, Bihar 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Muzzaffarpur 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Muzzaffarpur 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Muzzaffarpur 5. Awadhesh Prasad 6. Bhubhneshwar Prasad 7. Akhileshwar Prasad 8. Brajeshwar Prasad 9. Ghanshyam Prasad All Sons Of Late Ramashish Prasad Gupta, Resident Of Aam Gola Mai Sthan, P.O.- Ramana, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, District- Muzzaffarpur, Bihar- 842002 .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Sr. S.C. Mr. Archana Prasad, Jr. S.C. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The petitioner, an assessee, has preferred this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the notice dated 7[th] February 2014 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Muzaffarpur calling upon the petitioner (one of the partners) to establish the ownership of the gold ornaments seized from a partnership firm namely M/s. Govardhan Ram Ramashish Prasad, Purani Bazar, Muzaffarpur as early as in 1993. Since seizure the partnership firm has twice been dissolved and re-constituted. It appears that the petitioner has been called upon to satisfy the authority in respect of the ownership of the gold seized. Instead of satisfying the authority, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the aforesaid notice dated 7[th]February 2014. According to the learned advocate Mr. Rastogi appearing for the petitioner, the impugned notice has been issued without the authority of law. Be that as it may, the contentions raised in the present application can as well be raised before the authority. In absence of any order made against the petitioner, no cause of action has arisen. Petition is summarily rejected. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) K.C.jha/- U