2011 (2) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ears under consideration, writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Ferdino Inacio Rebello, Satish Chandra, JJ. Aseem Chandra for the Appellant S.C. Misra for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Satish Chandra: By this writ petition, the petitioner has made prayer that- (1) the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation Circle), Lucknow be restrained from proceeding on the basis of notices under Section 143(2)/142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order-sheet entry (query) dated 16.3.1998. (2) to quash the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96. Sri Aseem Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was an IAS officer who has regula .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e liable to be quashed. For the purpose, he relied on the following case-laws:- (1) M/s. S. Ganga Saran and sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta v. Income Tax Officer and others, (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 143; (2) Srikrishna Private Ltd. and others v. I.T.O., Calcutta and others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 534; and (3) The Income-Tax Officer, I Ward, District VI, Calcutta and others v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 757 On the other hand, Sri D.D.Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the property in question was acquired in the name of petitioner's father and the same was passed on automatically to the petitioner on succession as neither any brother or sister of petitioner are enjoying the benefit from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le. Also subsequent events cannot render a notice under Section 148 illegal. In the instant case, be a Court allowing the testamentary petition which order, we are informed, is now in appeal to the High Court. It is a disputed question of facts, as mentioned above. Further, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to be exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 where it was observed- "Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X