Rameshkumar Tulsidas Knaeriya v. Assistant Director Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6256 of 2021 ==========================================================RAMESHKUMAR TULSIDAS KNAERIYA Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance:DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDIandHONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI Date : 27/07/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition,seeking the prayer as contained in Prayer ClauseIII(A) of the petition for treating the returnfiled by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 as a validreturn. It may be noted that as stated in theaffidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, thepetitioner’s return of income has already beenprocessed by the Centralized Processing Centreon 23.2.2021 and the intimation with the DINnumber has already been sent to the petitioner.seeking the prayer as contained in Prayer ClauseIII(A) of the petition for treating the returnfiled by the petitioner on 17.12.2019 as a validreturn. It may be noted that as stated in theaffidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, thepetitioner’s return of income has already beenprocessed by the Centralized Processing Centreon 23.2.2021 and the intimation with the DINnumber has already been sent to the petitioner. 2. In view of the above, the learned StandingCounsel Mr.Varun Patel appearing for therespondent submits that the grievance of thepetitioner does not survive in view of theaffidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of therespondent.Counsel Mr.Varun Patel appearing for therespondent submits that the grievance of thepetitioner does not survive in view of theaffidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of therespondent. 3. The learned Advocate Mr. D. R. Patel appearingfor the petitioner, does not dispute the saidposition, however, submits that the portal ofthe respondent being not in order, thepetitioner’s return of income is still shown as“invalid”.for the petitioner, does not dispute the saidposition, however, submits that the portal ofthe respondent being not in order, thepetitioner’s return of income is still shown as“invalid”. 4. In any case, in view of the affidavit-in-replyfiled by the respondent, since the return of thepetitioner has already been processed, treatingthe same as a valid return, the grievance of thepetitioner does not survive. The petition,therefore, is disposed of with liberty to thepetitioner to revive the same in case ofdifficulty.filed by the respondent, since the return of thepetitioner has already been processed, treatingthe same as a valid return, the grievance of thepetitioner does not survive. The petition,therefore, is disposed of with liberty to thepetitioner to revive the same in case ofdifficulty. (BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) V.V.P. PODUVAL (A. C. JOSHI,J)