Cwjc/8057/2008 Of Rajesh Kumar v. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-Siwan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8057 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-SIWAN ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Purnendu Singh Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. S.K.Sharan, Junior Standing counsel. ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 05th August, 2008 That the impugned assessment order is appealable, is not in dispute. However, the counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi-III, [1978] 115 ITR 524 and submits that the assessment order is inconsistent with the said decision. The counsel also relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kalpnath Rai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar , Patna and another, [1985] 151 ITR 281, and submits that best judgment assessment ought to be based on an honest and fair estimate and in the contract work undertaken for the government, cost of material supplied by the government should be excluded. 2. We are afraid, the correctness of the merits of the assessment order can be effectively examined by the appellate Sunil authority. There is nothing extraordinary that justifies bypassing the alternative remedy provided under the Statute. 3. It is pertinent to notice that in the assessment order, the assessing authority has recorded that notices under Section 142 (1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were sent to the assessee by registered post, but there was no compliance by the assessee on due date. Another notice dated 7[th] of August, 2006 under Section 142(1) was issued and in compliance thereof, the assessee appeared, but no books of account or any other relevant paper was produced for examination. 4. Thus, it seems that it is not a case where the assessment order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice justifying invocation of high prerogative writ jurisdiction bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal. 5. We are, thus, not persuaded to admit the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. 6. We clarify that our observations are only for the purposes of consideration of writ petition and shall not influence the consideration of the appeal by the appellate authority on merits which, obviously, will be done in accordance with law. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J.