M/S Satya Vidya Real Estate ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3190 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 217 of 2022
M/s Satya Vidya Real Estate Private Limited A Company Duly Registered
Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its
Registered Office At, Hatari Bazar Road, Sakti -495689, Chhattisgarh,
Through Its Director Arun Kumar Agrawal

                                                               ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle, Bilaspur, Income
Tax Department, Having Its Office At, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar,
Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur - 495001, Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

02.05.2022

Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel, appearing for the sole

respondent.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 30.03.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (T) No.87 of 2022, whereby

the learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition as the

appellant has efficacious alternative remedy under Section 246A of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act of 1961').

3. The challenge in the writ petition was to a notice issued under

Section 153C of the Act of 1961. The grievance expressed was that the

assessing officer who handed over materials seized to the assessing

officer having jurisdiction did not record any satisfaction.

4. Though it was not disputed by Mr. Singhal as recorded by the

learned Single Judge that the assessee having submitted an application

before the assessing officer, he supplied reasons recorded by him before

issuance of notice under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, Mr. Singhal

submits that recording of satisfaction by the other assessing officer was

not supplied along with other materials.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, assessment order was

passed on 21.03.2022 (digitally signed on 26.03.2022).

6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the

learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

                        Sd/-                                  Sd/-
            (Arup Kumar Goswami)                 (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                 Chief Justice                                Judge




Anu