Througii:mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Centralcircle-15

$-17 to 23. *IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 5950/2015 SALONINARANG Petitioner Througii:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. WITH + W.P.(C) 5951/2015 SALONINARANG PetitionerMr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. Through: versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)Nos. 5950,5951,5952, 5953, 5954,5955& 5956of2015 Page 1 of6 o + + WITH W.P.(C) 5952/2015 SALONINARANG Petitioner Through:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERCIRCLE-15, OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL Respondent Through:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. WITH W.P.(C) 5953/2015 SALONINARANG PetitionerThrough:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. WITH W.P.(C) Nos. 5950, 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 & 5956 of2015 + + + W.P.(C) 5954/2015 SALONINARANG PetitionerThrough:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. WITH 5955/2015 SALONINARANG PetitionerThrough:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate.versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. AND W.P.(C) 5956/2015 HARSHIT TRIPATHI PetitionerThrough:Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. W.P.(Q Nos. 5950, 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 & 5956 of2015 Page 3 of 6 -i') versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-15, RespondentThrough:Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. AbhishekSharma, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER%10.06.2015 CM APPL Nos. 10783/2015.10785/2015.10787/2015.10789/2015,10791/2015.10793/2015& 10795/2015 1.Exemptions allowedsubjectto all just exemptions. 2.The applications stand disposed of. 3.The prayer in these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India is that the Court should stay the operation ofW.R(C) Nos. 5950, 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 & 5956 of2015Page 4 of 6 two noticesdated 05^^ March,2014 and 14^^ May, 2014 issuedby theRespondentunder Section271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961('Act') inrelationto Assessmentyear 2007-08till 2011-2012till thedisposalof the first appeals preferred by the PetitioneragainsttheAssessment Orders for those which are before the years, pendingCommissionerof IncomeTax (Appeals)-XXVI,New Delhi. 4. At the outset, the Court put a query to learned counsel for thePetitioner,whetherinrespectof an orderpassedagainstthePetitionerpursuant to the impugned notices, the Petitioner would have astatutoryremedy of appeal under the Act? Learnedcounsel for thePetitioner answered in affirmative but insisted that the Petitioner has arightto file awritpetitiontochallengethe impugnednotices. 5. The Courtis notpersuadedto interferein the matterat this stagewhen only noticeshave been issuedto the Petitionerpursuantto thestatutory powers of the Respondents.In other words, there is nostatutory bar to penalty proceedings being initiated against thePetitioner. In the event any adverse order is passed against thePetitioner,shecanavailthe remediesavailableto her underthe ActinW.P.(C)Nos. 5950,5951, 5952,5953,5954,5955&5956of2015Page5of6 accordance with law, urging all the grounds that may be available toher, including those raised in the present petitions. 6. The petitionsandthe applicationsare accordinglydismissed. S.MURALIDHAR(Vacation Judge) 5. The Courtis notpersuadedto interferein the matterat this stagewhen only noticeshave been issuedto the Petitionerpursuantto thestatutory powers of the Respondents.In other words, there is nostatutory bar to penalty proceedings being initiated against thePetitioner. In the event any adverse order is passed against thePetitioner,shecanavailthe remediesavailableto her underthe ActinW.P.(C)Nos. 5950,5951, 5952,5953,5954,5955&5956of2015Page5of6 accordance with law, urging all the grounds that may be available toher, including those raised in the present petitions. 6. The petitionsandthe applicationsare accordinglydismissed. S.MURALIDHAR(Vacation Judge) JUNE 10,2015/gb L^ak«EHTAication Judge) W.P.(C) Nos. 5950, 5951, 5952, 5953, 5954, 5955 & 5956 of2015