End Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1) Delhi And Ors

$~73 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 5794/2024SANJAY JAIN ..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Vivek Sarin, Ms.Divyanshi Singh,Mr.Akash Gupta and Mr.Satish CKaushik,AdvocateswithMr.Abhishek Jai, CA and petitioner inperson. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1) DELHI AND ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.SiddharthaSinha,SrSC,Ms.Dacchita Shahi, Ms.Anuja Pethia,Jr SC, Mr.Nring Chamwibo ZeliangandMs.AnuPriyaNishaMinz,Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJUO R D E R%25.04.2024CM APPL. 23970/2024(for Exemption) 1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 5794/2024 & CM APPL. 23969/2024 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia¸ impugning thereassessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed under Sections 144/147/144Bof the Income Tax Act, 1961.It is the case of the petitioner that theassessment has been made in the wrong Permanent Account Number, that is PAN , which has not been used by the petitioner. 4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits thatthe petitioner had two Permanent Account Numbers and was instructed touse only one Permanent Account Number (PAN ). Therefore,he has been using only Permanent Account Number. 5.The Assessment order is an appealable order and the petitioner has analternate efficacious remedy.It also prima facie appears that there aredisputed questions of law and facts involved in the matter. Accordingly, thisCourt cannot entertain the present writ petition. 6.The petition stands dismissed. However, it is left open for thepetitioner to avail alternative remedies which may be available under law. Itis clarified that all rights and contentions of the petitioner are reserved. Allpending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 25, 2024 M TARA VITASTA GANJU, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any