Dilip Raj Singhvi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(A), Jodhpur, Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13439/2024 Dilip Raj Singhvi S/o Shri Bachchraj Ji Singhvi, Aged About 60Years, R/o D-160, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Pan No.Ainps1239A ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(A), Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr. Nihar JainFor Respondent(s): Mr. K.K. Bissa : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUROrder 16/08/2024 1.Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent appearson advance copy. 2.Though learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urgedwith all vehemence at his command that the reopening ofassessment vide impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed inpurported exercise of power under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and in respect ofreassessment/reopening of the previous assessment years,petitions have been filed and/are pending consideration, we are ofthe view that this petition is liable to be dismissed only on theground of delay and laches. 3.The writ petition contains not even a whisper as to why thepetitioner could not earlier challenge the order dated 06.04.2023,except that, he had already approached the Court in respect ofprevious assessment years. 4.The order reopening assessment was passed by therespondents in exercise of the power under Section 148A of theIncome Tax Act. After giving notice to the petitioner and obtaininghis reply, impugned order was passed as back as on 06.04.2023.We are at a loss as to what prevented the petitioner fromchallenging this order. Having not challenged this order for areasonably long period, the order attained finality. 5.It is quite apparent that while passing order under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on 06.04.2023, notice ofreassessment was also simultaneously issued. The petitionerremained indolent. It is only when the reassessment proceedingswere initiated by issuing notice under Section 142(1) of theIncome Tax Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6.Irrespective of the merits of the case, taking intoconsideration that the present is not a case where additional taxliability is imposed and only reassessment proceedings have beeninitiated, on account of delay alone, we are not inclined to exerciseour discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India to entertain challenge to validity of the order dated06.04.2023. The issues and grounds, which have been raised inthis petition, shall be open to be raised at the stage ofreassessment before the assessing authority, who shall considerthe same before passing the order of reassessment. 7.The present petition stands dismissed. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ