Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha V. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Income Tax Officer Ward 6(5) and Union of India through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

CWJC/4468/2019

AI Insights

Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha filed a writ petition against multiple respondents including the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and other officials, challenging an order that taxed him on what he claimed was a hypothetical income. The petitioner argued that the income tax authorities ignored specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Sections 48 and 54F, which pertain to the calculation of capital gains. The respondents countered by highlighting the petitioner's concealment of material facts, particularly the financial transactions and the status of the property project involved. The court concluded that it was not a fact-finding body and thus dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to seek redress from the appropriate statutory authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808156 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RISHI SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH SAHAY
• Keywords: Capital Gain; Fundamental Right; Hypothetical income; Taxation; Writ petition
• Section: 48; 45; 54-F

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4468 of 2019 ====================================================== Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Jugal Kishore Prasad, C/o Vinay Kumar Verma, B-79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna- 800020, presently at 213, Bharat Golf View Apartment, Behind Manipal Hospital, Layout, Old Airport Road, Banglore North, Vimanapura, Karnataka, 560017. ... ... 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 Birchand Patel Path Patna, 800001. 3. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 5. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 6. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(5), Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 7. Union of India through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 8 16-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The present petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions towards cancellation/quashing the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Patna High Court CWJC No.4468 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 2/3 respondent no.6. Respondent authority has ignored the operative part of the act under which the calculation of capital gain is to be decided. Section 48 explanation iii and Section 54 F of the Income Tax Act has been left aside and has taxed the petitioner on hypothetical income. The order of the respondent directly affects the fundamental right of the petitioner and liability has been imposed on hypothetical income which could not be taxed under Section 45 and 48 of the Act. Petitioner is not a financial good condition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition, more so, for the reason that the petitioner has concealed the relevant material information from the Court with regard to the status of the project. It is only after repeated queries were put to the learned counsel, that the learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the fact that post execution of agreement dated 30.04.2010, subject matter of lis, the construction is carried out in part and a tenant inducted into the property, from whom huge amount of rent is being charged by the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the provisions of Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act. Patna High Court CWJC No.4468 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 3/3 Well, we are of the considered view that this Court is not a fact finding authority. As such, any order passed by the Assessing Officer, so assailed being erroneous one question of facts, has to be adjudicated not by a writ Court but by an appropriate authority constituted under the Statute. As such, on this short ground alone, we dismiss the present petition. uday/- (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U "