Pankaj Kumar vs Commissioner Of Income Tax
2023 Latest Caselaw 2292 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20926 of 2019
     ======================================================

Pankaj Kumar, son of Shri Suresh Prasad Sinha, 87/78/185 Humad Gali, Patna Saheb Railway Station, Begumpur Chowk, PO and PS- Patna City, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Commissioner of Income Tax having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

2. Income Tax Office, Ward 6 (2), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1774 of 2020 ====================================================== Mohamid Abdul Hai, son of Dr. A. A. Hai resident of near Abdul Hai Commercial Complex, Exhibition Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2565 of 2020 ====================================================== Hashmat Hai @ Hasmat Hai, wife of Dr. A.A. Hai, resident of Abdul Hai Commercial Complex, Exhibition Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Patna. Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2662 of 2020 ====================================================== Satyam Kumar Singh, son of Surendra Prasad Singh, House no. 282, Sector- 37, Faridabad, Haryana at present residing at Village Maksudpur, P.O. and P.S.- Shahjhanpur, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Patna

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2766 of 2020 ====================================================== Keshav Ranjan, Son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Rukunpura, P.O.-B.V. College and Police Station-Rupuspur, District-Patna- 800014.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through The Finance Secretary, North Block, Department of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (Bihar and Jharkhand) Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Baily Road, Patna-800 001.

3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna, Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Baily Road, Patna-800 001.

4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Building, New Dakbanglow Road, Patna-800001.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3005 of 2020 ====================================================== Zareen Abdul Hai @ Kulsum Abdul Hai Daughter of Dr. Ahmad Abdul Hai Resident of Abdul Hai Commercial Complex, Exhibition Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Gandhi Maidan, District Patna through her constituted attorney Dr Ahmad Abdul Hai (aged about 77 years Male) Son of Late Dr. M.A. Hai Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Resident of Abdul Hai Commercial Complex, Exhibition Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Gandhi Maidan, Disrrict Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3019 of 2020 ====================================================== Raj Kumar, Son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Rukunpura, P.O.- B.V. College, and Police Station- Rupuspur, District- Patna- 800014.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Finance Secretary, North Block, Department of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi- 110001.

2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (Bihar and Jharkhand).

3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- II, Patna.

4. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6 (2), Patna Address of 2 and 3 are at Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Baily Road, Patna- 800001 and Address of 4 is at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Building, New Dakbanglow, Road, Patna- 800001.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3078 of 2020 ====================================================== Baboo Rai, Son of Dr. Hit Narayan Rai, Parn Kutir, Khaitan Lane, West Boring Canal Road, Buddha Colony, P.O. GPO, P.S. Buddha Colony, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax-II having its Office at Central Revenue Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3666 of 2020 ====================================================== Deo Prasad Singh, Son of late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Rukunpura, P.O. B.V. College and Police Station- Rupuspur, District- 800014

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Finance Secretary, Room No. 6A, 3rd Floor, Department of Finance Minister , Govt. of India, North Block New Delhi- 110001

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, II, Patna Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800 001

3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(2) , Patna Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Building , New Dakbanglow, Road, Patna- 800001

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3720 of 2020 ====================================================== Arun Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ram Pukar Singh, Resident of Village-Lakhni Bigha, P.S.-Khagaul, PO-Danapur, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, New Delhi.

2. The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar and Jharkhand.

4. The principal Commissioner of Income Tax ii, Patna.

5. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Patna.

7. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna, Bihar.

8. The Director, Aastha Homes Pvt. Ltd, D.N. Market, near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna-14.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3790 of 2020 Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

====================================================== Vishwanath Singh, Son of Ramgati Singh, 717 Gandhi Nagar, Rajnarayan Dwar, Danapur, Digha Diara, P.O. Digha, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Patna,.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3797 of 2020 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar alias Sunil Kumar Singh S/o- Late Ram Pukar Singh resident of Village- Lakhni Bigha, P.S.- Khagaul, P.O.- Danapur, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, New Delhi.

2. The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar and Jharkhand.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax II, Patna.

5. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 6, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6, Patna.

7. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna, Bihar.

8. The Director, Aastha Homes Pvt. Ltd, D.N. Market, near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna- 14.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4796 of 2020 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar, Son of Vishwanath Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Gavtal, Rajnarayan Dwar, Tribhuvan Park, Danapur, Digha Diara, PO-Digha, PS-Danapur, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its Office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4977 of 2020 ====================================================== Avinash Kumar alias Vinay Singh S/o- Late Ram Pukar Singh resident of Village- Lakhni Bigha, P.S.- Khagaul, PO- Danapur, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, New Delhi.

2. The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar and Jharkhand.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna.

5. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 6, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Patna.

7. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (4), Patna, Bihar.

8. The Director, Aastha Homes Pvt. Ltd, D.N. Market, near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna- 14.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5027 of 2020 ====================================================== Chandra Kishor Varma S/o Late Ram Pukar Singh, resident of Village - Lakhni Bigha, P.S.- Khagaul, P.O.- Danapur, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, New Delhi.

2. The Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar and Jharkhand.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ii, Patna.

5. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 6, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6, Patna. Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

7. The Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (4), Patna, Bihar.

8. The Director, Aastha Homes Pvt. Ltd, D.N. Market, near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna - 14.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5065 of 2020 ====================================================== Bijendra Prasad alias Birendra Kumar, Son of late Ram Pukar Singh, Resident of Village- Lakhni Bigha, P.S. Khagaul, P.O.- Danapur, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, New Delhi.

2. The Finance Department, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, Bihar and Jharkhand.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ii, Patna.

5. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Patna.

7. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna, Bihar.

8. The Director, Aastha Home Pvt. Ltd. D.N. Market, Near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna-14

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5275 of 2020 ====================================================== Sharda Kumari, Wife of Rohit Kumar, Ara Garden, Near Anandi Apartment, Tapeshwar Nagar, B.V. College, P.O.- Vetenary College, P.S.- Airport Police Station, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (2), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5295 of 2020 ====================================================== Pravin Kumar, Son of Bishwanath Singh, 717 Gandhi Nagar, Rajnarayan Dwar, Danapur, Digha Diara, P.O.-Digha, PS-Danapur, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Commissioner of Income Tax, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

3. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6041 of 2020 ====================================================== Manish Kumar, Son of Late Raj Murari Singh, Resident of Sohagi, Gaurichak, Sona Gopalpur, P.o.- Sona Gopalpur, P.s.- Gaurichak, District- Patna residing at Sheikhpura, Durga Asthan Ke Gali, Rukanpura, B.V. College, P.o.- Vetenary College, P.s.- Airport, Police Station, Dist.- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Commissioner of Income Tax having its office at Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.

2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15459 of 2021 ====================================================== Jagat Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Rukunpura, P.O.- B.V. College and Police Station- Rupuspur, District- Patna- 800014.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through the Finance Secretary, Room No. 6A, 3rd Floor, Department of Finance Minister, Govt. of India, North Block New Delhi- 110001.

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna, Revenue Building, Virchand Patel Marg, Baily Road, Patna- 800001.

3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Building, New Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15554 of 2021 ====================================================== Nawal Kishore Singh, Son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, Resident of Mohalla

- Rukunpura, P.O. - B.V. College and Police Station - Rupuspur, District - Patna - 800014

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Union of India through The Finance Secretary, Room No. 6A, 3rd Floor, Department of Finance Minister, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.

2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Patna.

3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Building, New Dakbanglow Road, Patna - 800001.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20926 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1774 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2565 of 2020) FFor the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2662 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G. Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2766 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3005 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3019 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate Mrs. Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3078 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Chaitnya Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3666 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3720 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3790 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3797 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4796 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mr. Sadashiv Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Chaitnya Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4977 of 2020) or the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5027 of 2020) or the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5065 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5275 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Chaitnya Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5295 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate Mr. Chaitnya Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6041 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.V.Pathy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15459 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15554 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chiranjiva Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, A.S.G.

Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 12-05-2023

The batch of writ petitions challenge notices issued

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act') and some of them also challenge the

order issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act

and the notice of demand issued pursuant to the assessment

orders.

2. The question of law raised in the writ petitions,

filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as to

whether sub-section (5A) of Section 45 of the Act; inserted by Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2018, apply

retrospectively. The petitioners also contend that if it is held to

be prospective, as is the consequence of the express words

employed in the Finance Act, then it would violate Article 14 of

the Constitution of India on the ground of invidious

discrimination between the same class of persons. It is also

argued that sub-section (5A) has been brought into the Income

Tax Act to remove unintended consequences of the earlier

provision for computation of capital gains on a conjoint reading

of Sections 2(47)(v), 45 & 48. In such circumstances, the same

should be considered as retrospective, despite the recitals in the

Finance Act indicating it to be prospective. Insofar as the orders

passed, which were also challenged in some of the writ

petitions, the challenge made is to the very jurisdiction

exercised by the Assessing Officer; relying on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax

vs. Balbir Singh Maini; (2018) 12 SCC 354.

3. We heard Shri D.V.Pathy, learned counsel for the

writ petitioners and Dr. K.N.Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General, instructed by Smt. Archana Sinha, learned senior

standing counsel for the Income Tax Department.

4. In the case of Balbir Singh Maini (supra) at Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

paragraph-3 the following questions of law were framed, which

are extracted hereinbelow:

"i) Whether the transactions in hand envisage a "transfer" exigible to tax by reference to Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, has ignored rights emanating from the JDA, legal effect of non-registration of JDA, its alleged repudiation, etc.?

iii) Whether "possession" as envisaged by Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect?

iv) Whether there was any default on the part of the developers, and if so, its effect on the transactions and on exigibility of tax?

v) Whether amount yet to be received can be taxed on a hypothetical assumption arising from the amount to be received?"

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 30 and

31, answered the aspect relevant to this case as follows :-

"30. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the income from capital gain on a transaction which never materialised is, at Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

best, a hypothetical income. It is admitted that for want of permissions, the entire transaction of development envisaged in the JDA fell through. In point of fact, income did not result at all for the aforesaid reason. This being the case, it is clear that there is no profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.

31. In the present case, the assessee did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. This being the case, in the circumstances, there was no debt owed to the assessees by the developers and therefore, the assessees have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. This being so, no profits or gains "arose" from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act."

6. The binding declaration of the above decision is

insofar as, unless the income from capital gains of a transaction

has actually materialized; there is no question of any assessment

in the year in which a transfer occurred. This did not happen in

the captioned case, wherein the Joint Development Agreement Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

(JDA) fell through and for that reason income did not

materialize. It is to be noticed that this issue turns purely on the

facts of the case, which it may not be proper for us to dwell into,

especially in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Insofar as the challenge against the notices, the

assessee can place the facts before the Assessing Officer and if it

is identical or similar to the one decided in Balbir Singh Maini

(supra), the Assessing Officer would necessarily have to follow

the said decision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Insofar as the orders passed under Section 144 read with Section

147 of the Act, there is an appeal provided, to which remedy the

petitioners would have to be relegated.

7. Be that as it may, we are called upon to answer the

question regarding the retrospectivity claimed of an amendment

brought into the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2017

which inserted sub-section (5A) under Section 45 after sub-

section (5) and the explanation thereto; which was specifically

stated to be inserted with effect from 1st day of April, 2018,

making the amendment prospective in operation.

8. In support of the challenge raised, the petitioners

have relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Godrej

& Boyce MFG Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Tax; (2010) 43DTR 177(Bombay), the principle in which stood

affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allied Motors(P)

Ltd. Etc v. Commissioner of Income Tax; (1997) 224 ITR

0677. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Alom Extrusions

Limited; 2009 319 ITR 306 (SC) and Commissioner of

Income Tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.; (2018) 401 ITR

445(SC) were also relied on.

9. In Godrej & Boyce MFG Co. Ltd (supra), the

High Court of Bombay upheld both Section 14A and Rule 8B

brought into the Act and the Rules respectively, but held the

Rule to apply only prospectively while Section 14A was

introduced by an amendment to the Finance Act, 2001 with

restrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 and sub-sections (2)

and (3) were effective from 01.04.2007. Rule 8D, which was the

machinery provision for determining the expenditure incurred in

relation to income which does not form part of the total income,

was notified in the Official Gazette only from 24 th March, 2008.

The introduction of Section 14A was by reason of the Supreme

Court having held that the Assessing Officer cannot embark

upon an enquiry, whether an expenditure produced or will

produce taxable income and thus disallow the expenditure.

Section 14A, brought in with a validation clause, took away the Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

postulated that in computing the total income, no deduction

shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an

assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total

income under the Act. While upholding the constitutional

validity of Section 14A, it was held that the machinery

provisions would apply only from the date it was brought into

the rules. However, it was found that even before Rule 8D was

brought in, the Assessing Officer was obliged to enforce the

provision of sub-section (1) of Section 14A; which has to be

done on a reasonable basis through a method consistent with all

the relevant facts and circumstances, after furnishing a

reasonable opportunity to the assessee; though not necessarily

by way of the machinery provision brought under Rule 8D.

10. Learned Counsel placed specific emphasis on

paragraph-65 of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in

Godrej & Boyce MFG Co. Ltd (supra) which is extracted

herein below:-

"65 The following principles guide in determining as to whether an amendment is prospective or retrospective:

(i) In determining as to whether an amendment is to take effect prospectively or with retrospective effect, the date from Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

which the amendment is made operative does not conclusively decide the question. The Court has to examine the scheme of the statute prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment to determine whether an amendment is clarificatory or substantive;

(ii) An amendment which is clarificatory is regarded as being retrospective in nature and would date back to the original statutory provision which it seeks to amend. A clarificatory amendment is an expression of intent which the legislature has always intended to hold the field. A clarificatory amendment may be introduced in certain cases to set at rest divergent views expressed in decided cases on the true effect of a statutory provision wherein legislature clarifies its intent, it is regarded as being declaratory of the law as it always stood and is therefore, construed to be retrospective;

(iii) Where on the other hand, an amendment seeks to bring about a substantive change in legal rights and obligations, the Court would not readily accept an interpretation of the amendment that would render it retrospective in character. Clear words will be necessary in order to enable the Court to reach to such a conclusion;

(iv) Where the amendment is curative or Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

where it is intended to remedy unintended consequences or to render a statutory provision workable, the amendment may be construed to relate back to the provision in respect of which it supplies a remedial effect;

(v) Where an amendment essentially provides a rule of evidence such as a method for the valuation of the property by adopting one among a set of well-known and well accepted methods of valuation with a view to achieve uniformity in valuation and avoiding disparate valuations resulting from the application of different methods in respect of properties of a similar nature and character, the Court would place a construction on the statutory provision, giving the retrospective effect."

11. Allied Motors(P) Ltd. Etc. (supra) was a case in

which proviso to Section 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 1987,

with effect from 01.04.1987, was held to be retrospective. The

intention of bringing Section 43B and the reason for finding it to

be retrospective is found in the succinct declaration of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-5 of the aforesaid

judgment, which is extracted herein below :-

"Sec. 43B was, therefore, clearly aimed at curbing the activities of those taxpayers who did not discharge their statutory liability of Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

payment of excise duty, employer's contribution to provident fund etc. for long periods of time but claimed deductions in that regard from their income on the ground that the liability to pay these amounts had been incurred by them in the relevant previous year. It was to stop this mischief that S.43B was inserted. It was clearly not realized that the language in which S. 43B was worded would cause hardship to those taxpayers who had paid sales-tax within the statutory period prescribed for this payment, although the amount so made by them did not fall in the relevant previous year. This was because the sale-tax collected pertained to the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. It could be paid only in the next quarter which fell in the next accounting year. Therefore, even when the sales-tax had in fact been paid by the assessee within the statutory period prescribed for its payment and prior to the filing of the income-tax return, these assessees were unwittingly prevented from claiming a legitimate deduction in respect of the tax paid by them.

This was not intended by S.43B. Hence the first proviso was inserted in S.43B. The amendment which was made by the Finance Act of 1987 in S.43B by inserting, inter alia, the first proviso, was remedial in nature, Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

designed to eliminate unintended consequences which may cause undue hardship to the assessee and which made the provision unworkable or unjust in a specific situation.

Looking to the curative nature of the amendment made by the Finance Act of 1987 it had been submitted before us that the proviso which is inserted by the amending Finance Act of 1987 should be given retrospective effect and be read as forming a part of S. 43B from its inception. This submission had taken support from decisions of a number of High Courts before whom this question came up for consideration. The High Courts of Calcutta, Gujarat, Karnataka, Orissa, Gauhati, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Patna and Kerala appear to have taken the view that the proviso must be given retrospective effect. Some of these High Courts have held that 'sum payable under S. 43B(a) refers only to the sum payable in the same accounting year, thus excluding sales- tax payable in the next accounting year from the ambit of S.43B(a) The Delhi High Court has taken a contrary view holding that the first proviso to S. 43B operates only prospectively. We will refer only to some of these judgments".

Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

12. The purport of the above declarations is that, in

examining the question whether an amendment is prospective or

retrospective, the Court should determine whether it is

clarificatory or substantive. If it is clarificatory, it is an

expression of intent which the legislature always intended to

hold the field and if there is substantive change in legal rights

and obligations, it would not be curative and hence not

retrospective.

13. We are concerned with the specific question as to

whether by bringing sub-section (5A) under Section 45(5), the

legislature was trying to eliminate an unintended consequence,

visiting the assessee with a hardship, which was sought to be

removed; thus making it curative and hence retrospective?

Before the amendment, according to the department, as per

Section 2(47)(v) any transaction involving transfer of

possession of immovable property in part performance of a

contract, is a transfer of a capital asset and any profits or gains

arising from such transfer effected in the previous year are

chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains', deemed

to be the income of the previous year, the computation of which

is to be made under section 48.

14. We extract sub-section (5A) of Section 45, here Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

under :

(5A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises to an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, under a specified agreement, the capital gains shall be chargeable to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the competent authority; and for the purposes of section 48, the stamp duty value, on the date of issue of the said certificate, of his share, being land or building or both in the project, as increased by the consideration received in cash, if any, shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply where the assessee transfers his share in the project on or before the date of issue of the said certificate of completion, and the capital gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this sub-section, shall apply for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section, the expression-

(i) "competent authority" means the authority empowered to approve the building plan by or under any law for the time being in force;

(ii) "specified agreement" means a registered agreement in which a person owning land or building or both, agrees to allow another person to develop a real estate project on such land or building or both, in consideration of a share, Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

being land or building or both in such project, whether with or without payment of part of the consideration in cash;

(iii) "stamp duty value" means the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of the Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of an immovable property being land or building or both."

15. The petitioners' contention essentially is that

Section 45(1) read with Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act

enables inclusion of the capital gains in the total income of the

assessee, in the previous year in which possession of an

immovable property has been handed over, by the owners to the

developer as envisaged under Section 53A of the Transfer of

Property Act, under a JDA. Then, such income accruing from

the JDA is deemed to be an income of the owner of the property

accrued in the previous year in which the transfer is effected.

16. In Balbir Singh Maini(supra), it was held that by

reason of the amendment to the Registration Act, 1908 by the

Amendment Act of 2001, any JDA not registered in accordance

with the Registration Act, will have no effect in law for the

purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was

also held that the object of Section 2(47)(v) was to bring within

the taxable limit any de facto transfer of any immovable Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

property even though the title may not be transferred in law; but

there should be, in fact, a transfer of title in substance. Relying

on E.D.Sasson & Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax;

(1955) 1 SCR 313, it was held that income would accrue to an

asessee only on the actual receipt of the same or when the

assessee acquires a right to receive the income, despite the

actual receipt being later. Unless there is acquired, a right to

receive the income or that income has accrued to the assessee, it

cannot be included in the total income. Hence, when the JDA

had not taken effect, there cannot necessarily be an inclusion of

the entire consideration, as envisaged under Section 48 in the

total income of the assessee, was the binding declaration.

17. By the Finance Act, 2017, sub-section (5A) was

inserted under sub-section (5) of Section 45 and the explanation

thereto. As per sub-section (5A) with respect to capital gains

arising to an assesse who is an individual or a Hindu undivided

family from the transfer of capital asset, being land or building

or both, under a specified agreement shall be chargeable to

Income Tax as income of the previous year in which certificate

of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by

the competent authority. The discrimination alleged by the

petitioners in the batch of writ petitions is that, assessees Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

entering into a JDA are discriminated only by reason their legal

status; i.e. individuals and joint Hindu families are given a

benefit which is denied to others; like companies. The date of

amendment does not offer an intelligible differentia to

discriminate between similarly situated assessees, who have

entered into a JDA prior to and after the amendment, thus

creating two classes of persons among equally situated, seems to

be the argument.

18. The argument that in the computation of total

income, there cannot be a distinction between a company and an

individual, at the outset has to be rejected. The claim also is

only insofar as the amendment being retrospective and it is not

the contention that the amendment should be made applicable to

every entity entering into a JDA and not confined to an

individual or a joint Hindu family. The amendment, it is urged,

was brought in, to mitigate unintended consequences of an

assessee being obliged to compute in his total income, the

capital gains on the basis of its accrual, merely for reason of a

transfer having been effected as available under Section 53A of

the Transfer of Property Act.

19. We are unable to countenance the said argument

especially since the amendment to Section 45 by insertion of a Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

sub-section was expressly stated to be, with effect from the 1 st

day of April, 2018. There is no question of any discrimination

between persons who entered into a JDA before and after the

amendment, insofar as the JDA entered into by an individual or

a Hindu undivided family, prior to 01.04.2018 being governed

by the law on the subject as it existed at that point of time, i.e.

on a conjoint reading of Section 2(47)(v) read with Sections 45

& 48. There is no discrimination among equals since the

differentiation is made on the basis of date on which the JDA

has been entered into, which is a natural consequence of an

amendment brought into the Act by way of an insertion

expressly stated to be prospective from a specific date i.e.,

01.04.2018. Further, though there are different class of assessees

under the Income Tax Act, they cannot be considered to be

equal, merely for reason of their being assessed under that Act.

20. We refer to paragraph 65 of Godrej and Boyce

Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra), wherein the principles

of retrospectivity were succinctly stated; which we also have

extracted herein above. The date from which the amendment is

made operative, though does not conclusively decide the

question, the issue of retrospectivity has to be considered by

examining the scheme of the statute prior to the amendment and Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

subsequent to the amendment, to determine whether the

amendment is clarificatory or substantive. In addition to the fact

that the amendment is expressly stated to be effective only from

01.04.2018, the benefit of including the consideration by way of

a transfer as capital gains in the previous year in which the

certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is

issued by the competent authority, was confined to individuals

and Hindu undivided families. This very clearly indicates that

the benefit was intended to be conferred only on two classes of

assessees and this fact especially works against the contention

of the amendment being clarificatory. The amendment also

cannot be stated to have intended to remedy unintended

consequences or to render a statutory provision workable. It

cannot be related back to the date of enactment of the original

provisions, as an amendment supplying a remedial effect.

21. Section 2(47)(v) read with Sections 45 & 48

remains as such, applicable to all assesses who transferred a

capital asset coming within the definition of Section 53A of the

Transfer of Property Act, except those individuals and Hindu

undivided families, who by virtue of a JDA transferred the

capital assets after 01.04.2018.

22. The power of the legislature to make an Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

amendment, with retrospective effect is undisputed but the

requirement is that unless the same is expressed in clear

language or implied, without any scope for doubt, then the

amendment would only be prospective. An amendment can be

taken as impliedly retrospective only when it is intended at

removing an obvious anomaly or correcting a blatant error or

obliterating an absurdity or bringing it in consonance with any

other law or the Constitution. In fact, in such cases the

legislature brings in the amendment by way of a substitution and

even when a provision is substituted, it would be retrospective

only if it is so expressed or follows from necessary intendment,

as is implicit from the language implied. In the present case, the

amendment made effective from 01.04.2018 is expressly stated

to be prospective from that date and there can be no intendment

ferreted out since the above noted deficiencies are totally absent.

We find no discrimination having been visited on individuals or

Hindu undivided families, for whom there was a change made

in the manner, or the previous year in which the computation of

total income is made, which was effective only insofar as the

agreements entered into after 01.04.2018.

23. Insofar as unintended consequences, it would be

fruitful to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

case of Zile Singh v. State of Harayana & Others, reported in

(2004) 8 SCC 1, wherein an interpretation of an amendment

providing an exception to a disqualification was considered. On

April 5, 1994, an amendment was made to the Municipal Act in

Haryana, bringing in a disqualification for being elected or

continued as a member of the Municipality, to any person

having more than two children. An exception was provided to

those who had more than two living children 'on or after' the

expiry of one year of the commencement of the Act. This

resulted in anomalous consequences verging on absurdity, since

a person who has a third child on the commencement of the Act

would be disqualified but the said disqualification would be

removed on the expiry of a full year. A substitution was made

changing 'after' to 'upto'. Zile Singh who had a fourth child in

August when sought to be disqualified claimed that the

substitution made is retrospective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

found that the substitution was intended to remove the anomaly

and by necessary implication, it had retrospective effect from

the date on which the disqualification was brought into the

statute book. It was so held in paragraph 22 :-

"22. The State Legislature of Haryana intended to impose a disqualification with effect from 5-

4-1995 and that was done. Any person having Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

more than two living children was disqualified on and from that day for being a member of a municipality. However, while enacting a proviso by way of an exception carving out a fact situation from the operation of the newly introduced disqualification the draftsman's folly caused the creation of trouble. A simplistic reading of the text of the proviso spelled out a consequence which the legislature had never intended and could not have intended. It is true that the Second Amendment does not expressly give the amendment a retrospective operation. The absence of a provision expressly giving a retrospective operation to the legislation is not determinative of its prospectivity or retrospectivity. Intrinsic evidence may be available to show that the amendment was necessarily intended to have retrospective effect and if the Court can unhesitatingly conclude in favour of retrospectivity, the Court would not hesitate in giving the Act that operation unless prevented from doing so by any mandate contained in law or an established principle of interpretation of statutes."

24. We also garner support from Shyam Sundar &

Others v. Ram Kumar & Another, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 24,

wherein it was held that '... there is a presumption against the

retrospective operation of a statute and further a statute is not to

be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

language renders necessary, but an amending Act which affects

the procedure is presumed to be retrospective, unless amending

Act provides otherwise' (sic). Going by the above precedents,

we are of the opinion that sub-section (5A) inserted by way of

an amendment in the Finance Act, 2017, expressly stated to be

effective from 01.04.2018 cannot be treated as retrospective, for

reason of the express words employed and there can be no

intendment ferreted out, so as to deem it impliedly retrospective.

The consequences as per Section 45, for a person who transfers

a capital asset as contemplated under Section 2(47)(v) insofar as

having to compute the total income by including the capital

gains accrued in the previous year in which a transfer was

affected, when the JDA was entered into prior to 01.04.2018

was not an unintended consequence. This was substantially

changed insofar as an individual and a Hindu undivided family,

thus, making the liability to include the capital gains only in the

total income of the previous year in which completion

certificate was issued by the competent authority was a

substantive change brought in prospectively. We find no reason

to accept the contention raised of it's retrospectivity and reject

the argument of discrimination and the amendment having

intended mitigation of hardship and removal of unintended Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

consequences. The consequence that flow from the provisions

in the absence of sub-section (5A) of Section 45 prior to

01.04.2018 cannot be obliterated by the subsequent amendment,

which was expressly stated to be prospective. We reject the writ

petitions making it clear that we have answered only the

question of retrospectivity urged before us. We have not gone

into the facts and the various contentions of the petitoners,

regarding the JDA having not materialized, no consideration

having been passed, the JDA itself having become unworkable

and even some of the petitioners, companies and like legal

entities having become defunct. These contentions would have

to be considered on the anvil of the principles enunciated in

Balbir Singh Maini (supra). The appellants are left to their

statutory remedies and since, the above writ petitions were

pending before this Court for long, we grant them two months

time, in the case of notices, to file objections before the

Assessing Officer. Insofar as the assessment orders are

concerned, we grant the assessee's who are the petitioners

herein, a further period of three months from the date of receipt

of certified copy of this judgment, within which a statutory

appeal can be filed before the first Appellate Authority. All

contentions on individual facts will be considered either by the Patna High Court CWJC No.20926 of 2019 dt. 12-05-2023

Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority, depending upon

the stage of the assessment.

25. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above

observations.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Madhuresh Prasad, J) Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                25.04.2023
Uploading Date          12.05.2023
Transmission Date