Ram Kishore Kadel Son Of Shri Hari Ram Kadel v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8947/2023 Ram Kishore Kadel Son Of Shri Hari Ram Kadel, Aged About 73Years, Resident Of C-12/103 Prathvi Appartment, PrathvirajRoad, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, JaipurHaving Its Address At Having Its Address At New CentralRevenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road,JaipurHaving Its Address At Having Its Address At New CentralRevenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, JaipurHaving Its Address At New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, JaipurHaving Its Address At New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue,Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having ItsAddress At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its ChairmanMinistry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having ItsAddress At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman 4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income TaxDepartment, Ministry Of Finance, Inside Jawaharlal NehruStadium, New DelhiDepartment, Ministry Of Finance, Inside Jawaharlal NehruStadium, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate Mr. Jaya P. Pathak, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA 22/11/2023 Order Heard. Though the order passed under Section 148A (d) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of1961”) is challenged on various grounds, we are informed todaythat infact in the present case the assessment order was passedprior to filing of the writ petition and this fact has not beendisclosed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition, may be that assessment order was passed only a day before filing of thepetition. It appears that the petitioner has not duly instructed thecounsel on several subsequent dates when this case was listed forhearing i.e. on 27.09.2023, 20.10.2023 & 17.11.2023. We also find that in the present case the order under Section148A (d) of the Act of 1961 was passed way-back on 25.07.2022but it was not challenged by the petitioner but he participated inthe assessment proceedings and just a day before passing of theassessment order, the petitioner filed the writ petition. This Courtin almost similar circumstances refused to entertain the writpetition taking into consideration that there exists an alternativeremedy, in the case of Bhag Chand Jangid Versus PrincipalChief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan & Others,D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5819/2023decided on 17.04.2023.Therefore, in these circumstances, we are not inclined to entertainthis petition and leave the petitioner to raise all the grounds whichhave been raised in the petition by way of an appeal as remedy isavailable to the petitioner under the law. The appellate authority, shall take into consideration all thepoints that have been raised by the petitioner in the petition toassail correctness, legality and validity of various orders,proceedings including assessment order. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposedof. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/200