MRS. BHARTI JAIN, WIFE OF MR. PRAMOD JAIN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - I

PDF · subscribers
CW/12037/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02061490202425 November 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,UMA SHANKER VYAS2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the order of assessment, it was not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to raise all the grounds before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. No decision was made on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mrs. Bharti Jain, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged an order dated 22.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent assessment order dated 25.04.2024. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Bharatpur, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-I, Bharatpur, and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan Region. The petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned orders. However, it was not disputed that an appeal had been filed against the order of assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available and has been availed by the petitioner. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner urged several grounds to assail the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent assessment order. (Specific grounds and authorities relied upon are not detailed in the judgment.) Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:48050-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12037/2024 Mrs. Bharti Jain, Wife Of Mr. Pramod Jain, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of D-767, 2Nd Floor, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi- 110034. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Near Govardhan Gate, Bharatpur- 321001 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward-I, Near Govarshan Gate, Bharatpur- 321001 3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan Region, Income Tax Building, Jaipur- 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharatt Grower through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singh Ms. N.S. Bhati HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 25/11/2024 1. Though number of grounds have been urged to assail the order dated 22.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 followed by an order of assessment dated 25.04.2024, it is not in dispute that aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal has been filed. 2. As the petitioner has already taken recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal available to her under the law, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to entertain this petition. (Uploaded on 30/11/2024 at 11:20:14 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:44 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:48050-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12037/2024] 3. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with aforesaid liberty. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ NAVAL KISHOR /Gaurav/15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/11/2024 at 11:20:14 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:40:44 AM)

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →