HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2020 Dinesh Bohra S/o Soman Raj Bohra, Aged About 50 Years, J-05 Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Chairman Of Central Board Of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur 3. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat. Mr. Shanker Singh. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 04/01/2020 This writ petition has been filed by petitioner aggrieved against assessment order and demand notice dated 23/12/2019 (Annex.8). notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act, 1961 ) for limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) was issued to petitioner indicating that return of income filed by petitioner has been selected for limited scrutiny for examination of issue relating to deduction/exemption from capital gains. Pursuant thereto notice under Section 142(1) of Act was issued to petitioner on 20/6/2019 calling upon petitioner to provide details in this regard. Whereafter, further information was sought on 31/10/2019 which was responded on behalf of petitioner on 12/11/2019. (Downloaded on 09/01/2020 at 11:06:53 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-97/2020] However, on 12/12/2019 another notice under Section 142 (1) of Act was issued calling upon petitioner to respond as to why his income should not be treated as income from business, to which response was given on behalf of petitioner inter alia claiming that income earned by assessee cannot be assessed from business and income so earned can only be assessed as capital gains. Whereafter, impugned assessment order along with demand notice dated 23/12/2019 (Annex.8) was passed/issued by Assessing Officer. writ petition has been filed questioning validity of assessment order and demand notice for lack of jurisdiction in Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia submitted that as notice was issued for limited scrutiny, scope of inquiry could not have been enlarged into full fledged scrutiny, which action is contrary to Instructions dated 30/11/2019 (Annex.7) issued by CBDT. Further submissions have been made that permission of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has also not been obtained and, therefore, assessment order being without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. Along with petition, order delivered by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow has been annexed as Annex.9. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and have perused material available on record. bare perusal of response filed on behalf of petitioner pursuant to notice under Section 142(1) dated 12/12/2019 calling upon petitioner as to why his income (Downloaded on 09/01/2020 at 11:06:53 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-97/2020] should not be treated as income from business would reveal that no objection worth name in relation to jurisdiction was raised. response was confined only to question raised and based on that Assessing Officer by exhaustively dealing with material available before him and dealing with limited issues raised in reply, passed assessment order (Annex.8). assessment order is open to appeal under Part of Chapter XX of Act, 1961. Various submissions sought to be made questioning jurisdiction of authority, in circumstances of case, can very well be raised before appellate authority and apparently no case for bypassing alternative remedy of appeal has been made out. Hon ble Supreme Court in Genpact India Private Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. : (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 reiterating principles laid down in Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal : (2014) 1 SCC 603 and Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. vs. Mathew K.C. upheld dismissal of writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy against assessment order. In view of above discussion, writ petition challenging assessment order and demand notice dated 23/12/2019 on account of availability of alternative remedy of appeal is not entertained and same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (ARUN BHANSALI),J 256-baweja/- (Downloaded on 09/01/2020 at 11:06:53 AM) Powered by TCPDF Dinesh Bohra v. Union of India / Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jodhpur/ Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur