Rajesh Kumar, Son Of Late Dayanand Yadav v. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13392 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.Meera Devi, wife of Late Dayanand Yadav residing at Ramna Lane, B.M.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004. 2.Abhay Kumar, son of Late Daaynand Yadav, residing at Ramna Lane, B.M.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004. 3.Rajesh Kumar, son of Late Dayanand Yadav, residing at Ramna Lane, B.M.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004.Das Road, Pibahore, Bankipore, Patna, Bihar- 800004. Versus ... ... Petitioner/s 1.Commissioner of Income Tax 1 having its office at Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 2.Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre,Delhi.Delhi. 3.Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Patna. 4.Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Patna. 307-12-2022 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :For the Petitioner/s:For the Respondent/s: Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Ms. Swarna Raj, Advocate Ms. Alok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHYORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Petitioners have prayed for the following relief/s:- “i) the ex parte order of assessment dated11.03.2022 (as contained in Annexure-11 series)passed by the respondent no.1 under Section 147read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for theAssessment Year 2017-18 even in respect ofinvestments made by the petitioner no.2 and 3without giving any notice to them being contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. ii) for grant any other relief(s) to whichthe petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we areof the considered view that the issue raised by the presentpetitioners, more so, when it deals with the factual matrix,whether there is compliance of Section 144B of the Income TaxAct (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) or not and as to whetherthe information in reference thereto was uploaded on the digitalportal are all questions of fact, which can be best adjudicatedby the final fact finding authority i.e. appellate authority, underthe provisions of the Act. As such, we dispose of the present petition reservingliberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as areotherwise available in accordance with law. At this stage, Mr. D. V. Pathy, learned counsel for thepetitioners states that the petitioners shall prefer an appealwithin a period of one week from today and a direction may beissued to the appellate authority to decide the sameexpeditiously. Mrs. Archana Shahi, learned counsel for therespondents states that if the petitioners fully co-operate in the Ashwini/Sujit U 3/3 proceeding, the appellate authority shall decide the appealwithin a period of six months. Ordered accordingly. The instant petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J)