Cwjc/7846/2024 Of Krishna Devi Devi Prasad Kejriwal Matrisadan Trust v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Income Tax Department, Bihar Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7846 of 2024 ====================================================== Krishna Devi Devi Prasad Kejriwal Matrisadan Trust a registered trust havingits office in Juran Chapra, Road Number- 2, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001through one of its trustees namely Gaurav Goenka Male aged about 43 years,son of Gopal Kumar Goenka, resident of Kalambagh Road, Near SpeakerChowk, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Department,Bihar Patna.Bihar Patna. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Income Tax Department,Bihar Patna.Bihar Patna. 3.The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Assessment Unit, New Delhi. 4.The Assessment Unit, The National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate Mr. Atal Bihari Pandey, Advocate Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, AdvocateFor the Respondent: Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Sr.Adv Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEYORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 615-07-2025Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-department ofIncome Tax. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ application for the following relief(s) : “a) For issuance of a writ or order ordirection in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27.03.2024and the consequent notice of demanddated 27.03.2024 passed by therespondent number 4 (hereinafterreferred to as the assessing authority forshort) whereby liability of tax againstthe petitioner has been assessed withrespect to assessment year 2018 2019in exercise of power under section 143(3) read with section 263 read withsection 144 B of the Income Tax Act1961 (hereinafter referred to as "theact" for short) in complete departurefrom the statutory provisions of section144 B of the act relating to facelessassessment; b) For further issuance of a writ ororder or direction restraining therespondent assessing authority or anyother respondent from resorting to anycoercive action against the petitionerfor recovery of the amount of taxdetermined in terms of the impugnedorder; c) For further holding and a declarationthat the impugned order passed by therespondentassessingauthoritydetermining liability of tax in exerciseof power under section 143 (3) readwith section 263 read with section 144B of the act is violative of the principleof law enshrined in the maxim"expressio unius est exclusio alterius";d) For grant of any other relief/(s) forwhich the petitioner may legally be found entitled to in the facts of circumstances of the case.” 3. After some arguments upon completion ofpleading, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he maybe allowed to withdraw this writ application with liberty toprefer a statutory appeal against the impugned order ofassessment as well as penalty order. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the periodspent by the petitioner before this Court in pursuing its remedymay be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation. 5. Learned counsel further submits that this Courtmay while granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer statutoryappeal pass an interim order staying recovery of the amount. found entitled to in the facts of circumstances of the case.” 3. After some arguments upon completion ofpleading, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he maybe allowed to withdraw this writ application with liberty toprefer a statutory appeal against the impugned order ofassessment as well as penalty order. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the periodspent by the petitioner before this Court in pursuing its remedymay be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation. 5. Learned counsel further submits that this Courtmay while granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer statutoryappeal pass an interim order staying recovery of the amount. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for theDepartment submits that she would have no objection to theextent that the petitioner may withdraw his writ application withliberty to prefer an appeal and if such a plea is preferred, theperiod spent by the petitioner before this Court may not be takeninto consideration for counting the period of limitation. LearnedSenior Standing Counsel, however, submits that no stay of therecovery be granted as the petitioner has a remedy available inlaw to apply for stay before the concerned Assessing Officerwho may consider his application at the earliest opportunity. Shubham/-Durgesh/- UT 7.Having regard to the submissions notedhereinabove, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this writapplication with liberty to prefer an appeal within a period offour weeks’ from today. If such an appeal is preferred, theperiod spent by the petitioner before this Court in pursuing thewrit remedy shall be excluded in counting the period oflimitation. 8. So far as the prayer for stay of the recovery isconcerned, since the petitioner has got a statutory remedy asinformed to this Court before the Assessing Officer, we wouldnot grant any interim order. The petitioner will be at liberty toapply for the interim order of the stay before the AssessingOfficer who will consider the same immediately after filing ofthe application and shall pass an appropriate order. 9. This writ application stands disposed of. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)