Meeragupta v. Deputy Commissionercircle-20(1)& Ors

$-6 to 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Hi +W.P.(C) 645/2017 +W.P.(C) 646/2017 +W.P.(C) 667/2017 +W.P.(C) 668/2017 +W.P.(C) 671/2017 +W.P.(C) 672/2017 +W.P.(C) 673/2017 MEERAGUPTA .PetitionerThrough:Mr.MukulGupta,sonofthepetitioner in person , versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONERCIRCLE-20(1)& ORS. OF INCOMERespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. PuneetRai, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR % ORDER21.02.2018 Mr. Mukul Gupta, son of the petitioneris presentin personinCourt. He has been heard. Mr. Mukul Gupta states and accepts that her mother, thepetitioner,has preferred an appeal against the order under Section153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), which is also impugnedinthe presentwrit petition.He submitsthat the petitionerwas asked to V. file an appeal against the order under Section 153A of the Act,notwithstandingthat the writ petitionsare preferredand filed beforethis Court. We do not thinkthat the petitionershouldbepermittedto availoftwo remediesimpugningthe same orderunderSection153AoftheAct. It is in this context that a detailed order on 26.10.2017 waspassed. Mr. MukulGupta states that the order under Section 153A oftheActisbad inlaw, violatesprinciplesofnaturaljusticeas sufficienttime andwas notIt isthat the orderwas opportunity granted. allegedpassed within nine days. Be that as it may, the petitionerhavingpreferredan appeal, isentitled to raise all contentions before the Commissionerof IncomeTax(Appeal),includingthe contentionof lack of adequate and fairopportunity. The respondent, as is apparent from the counter-affidavit, have contested the said contentions. Normally, the writ petitions are not entertained, whenalternativestatutoryremedy is available.In the presentcase, right toappeal has been exercisedand invoked by the petitioner.Assertionsmade and merits of the additions can be examined and decided by thefirst appellate authority. Mr. Mukul Guptastatesthat the total demandraised,as per theorders under Section 153A of the Act is about Rupees 18/19 crore andthe petitioneris not in a positionto paythe tax demand. By order dated 24.1.2017, it was directed that no coercive stepswould be taken to enforce the impugned order. The stay order shall continuefor a periodoffive weeksto enablethepetitionerto move anapplicationfor stay etc. The petitioner, if aggrieved by any orderpassedontheapplication,wouldbe entitledto challengeand questionthe same in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined toexercise our discretion and entertain the writ petitions. They areaccordinglydisposedof We again clarifythat wehave not expressedany opinion on merits.basti.^ i ^ ^ SANJIV KHANNA, J.GRANDERp SHEKHAR, SHEKHAR, J. FEBRUARY 21, 2018tp