MANISH KOOMAR V. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WPC/1024/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Manish Koomar, the petitioner, who challenged the valuation report by the Assistant Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that he was not given an opportunity to present relevant materials for a correct property valuation. Additionally, the petitioner was dissatisfied with the Tax Recovery Officer's rejection of his proposed valuers. The respondents included the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, the Tax Recovery Officer, and the Assistant Valuation Officer, all based in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn was influenced by the petitioner's intention to avail himself of the opportunity to settle the tax liability in installments, as per the instructions from the CBDT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761667 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG VIJAY; OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PASARI; SHUBHAM CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Appealable order; Income Tax Department; Installment Payment; Tax Recovery; Valuation Officer; Valuation report
• Section: 86

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 1024 of 2024 Manish Koomar, son of Bhim Munda, aged about 43 years, Resident of Opposite Nath Hospital, Kadru Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Ashok Nagar, Town & District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, having his office at 8th Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), 5A, Main Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Chutiya, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 2. The Tax Recovery Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), 5A, Main Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Chutiya, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 3. Assistant Valuation Officer, Ranchi, having its office at Valuation Cell, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), 5A, Main Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Chutiya, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. …. Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Order No.03/ Dated 4th March 2024 This writ petition seeks to challenge the valuation report by the Assistant Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department on the ground that the petitioner was not provided any opportunity to place the relevant materials before the Assistant Valuation Officer so as to determine correct valuation of the subject property. 2. As regards the grievance raised by the petitioner that the list of valuers proposed by him was not approved by the Tax Recovery Officer, it is stated in the communication dated 30th January 2024 that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of getting the valuation of the subject property conducted by one of the valuers from the list of valuers provided to him. 3. As the communication dated 30th January 2024 records that on failure of the petitioner to deposit the outstanding demand the attached property shall be put on auction after issuing a proclamation of sale in ITCP-13. Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the communication dated 30th January 2024 is in essence an order passed under second schedule of Income Tax Act, 1961 and -2- therefore the same is appealable under Rule 86 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits under the Second Schedule [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] of Income Tax has the powers to allow payment of the tax liability in instalments. The learned counsel refers to the instruction issued by the CBDT which advises the authority to allow payment by installments but not exceeding the period of 10 months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to avail those opportunities. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition so as to enable the petitioner to avail of remedy / opportunity as available to him. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to him to work out remedy as available to him in law. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty/R.Kumar "