Kumar Cement through its Partner Gagendra Kumar V. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax officer Ward 2(3)

CWJC/7093/2020

AI Insights

Kumar Cement, through its partner Gagendra Kumar, filed a writ petition against the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer, Biharsharif, under sections 144/147 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Biharsharif officer, claimed lack of notice under section 148, and argued that their income was improperly clubbed with that of M/S Arvind Enterprises, leading to duplicate orders for the same amount. The High Court of Patna, after hearing the arguments, decided not to interfere at this stage, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue statutory remedies and assured that any interim relief sought regarding the bank account attachment would be promptly addressed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677619 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH SAHAY
• Keywords: Bank attachment; Income Tax; Natural Justice; Territorial jurisdiction; Unsecured loan
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7093 of 2020 ====================================================== Kumar Cement through its Partner Gagendra Kumar, Main Road, Phulwarisharif, P.O. and P.S. Phulwarisharif, Patna 801505 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building. Birchand Patel Path Patna 800001 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Bir Chand Patel Path Patna. 800001. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna 800001. 4. Income Tax officer Ward 2(3) Biharsharif, Nalanda 803101 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-08-2020 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “i. To quash the order dated 04.10.2028 annexure-3 to the petition passed u/s 144/147 of Income Tax Act by the respondent no. 4 of Bihar Sharif. Petitioner do not fall under his territorial jurisdiction of the respondent 4 as petitioner is in filing return at Patna. Petitioner regularly filing return at Patna and has no link to Biharsharif. ii. For that the petitioner has not been served any notice u/s 148 before passing an order u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act. The order is in violation of Law Patna High Court CWJC No.7093 of 2020 dt.20-08-2020 2/3 of Natural Justice. iii. For that the petitioner’s income and expenditure was considered while passing an order of M/S Arvind Enterprises. Prop Gagendra Kumar, to whom petitioner gave advances against purchase but the Income Tax form do not have any column thus the amount was shown as unsecured loan. While passing an order of M/S Arvind Enterprises, Prop Gagendra Kumar the petitioner’s income was clubbed. Thus there are two orders for same amount. iv. For that to quash the Bank attachment for recovery against annexure 4 to the petition as the order u/s 144/147 is bad in the eye of law.” After the matter was heard, Shri Prakash Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly states that the petitioner shall take recourse to statutory remedies by way of filing appeal/revision. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, assures that as and when petitioner takes such recourse to such remedy and also files an application seeking removal of order of attachment of the Bank Account, the said application (for interim order) shall positively be considered and decided by an appropriate authority within a period of thirty days thereafter. We are not in agreement with the submission made Patna High Court CWJC No.7093 of 2020 dt.20-08-2020 3/3 by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and void ab initio. The issue of territorial jurisdiction is a question of fact, left to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. The writ petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of. P.K.P./- (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.08.2020 Transmission Date "