1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 367 of 2019 {Arising out of order dated 05.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (T) No. 237 of 2018} 1. M/s Precision Engineering Proprietorship Firm having its office at HIG-14, SBVP Nagar, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) through its proprietor Idicula Jacob, aged about 65 years, S/o Shri Idicula, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) 2. Idicula Jacob, S/o Shri Idicula, aged about 65 years, R/o HIG-14, SADA Colony, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) ---- Appellants Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (C.G.) 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-Korba office of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road, Korba (C.G.) 3. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent-Revenue : Shri Amit Chaudhari with Ms. Nausina Afrin Ali, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 15.01.2020 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2019, application for condonation of delay in filing present appeal. 2 2. For reasons mentioned in application, delay of 35 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and appeal is heard finally. 3. correctnesses and sustainability of verdict passed by learned Single Judge declining interference with regard to challenge raised as to re- assessment proceedings under Section 147, read with Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for appellants as well as Shri Amit Chaudhri and Ms. Naushina Ali, learned standing counsel representing respondent-revenue. 5. sequence of events reveals that appellant Proprietorship concern submitted necessary returns for assessment year 2015-16 and satisfied by tax accordingly. However, based on some information collected by way of Survey under Section 133(A) of Act, adjudication officer initiated proceeding for re-assessment of income and notice was issued under Section 148 of Act, which made writ petitioner/assessee to challenge it by filing writ petition. 6. nature of challenge was considered and after hearing both sides, learned Single Judge observed that, it was matter which could be effectively challenged by approaching statutory authority. Accordingly, writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice, which has given rise to present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that relegation of appellant to move statutory authority is not correct, insofar as, in respect of disputed portion, tax was already been paid by appellant and this should have been properly looked into by authorities and also by learned Single Judge. 3 8. learned standing counsel for department of revenue submits that version of assessee is not correct as such and that, it is more question of fact. After hearing, we are of view that matter involves some fact finding exercise and same can be effectively prosecuted before competent authority under statute, which cannot be matter for discussion and finalization invoking discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 9. In said circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, much less any illegality, with regard to course ordered to be pursued by learned Single Judge. appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed anything with regard to merit of case. It is always open for appellant to establish merit of case before statutory authority, based on facts and relevant provisions of law. 10. It is further made clear that specific case projected by appellant/writ petitioner that, he having satisfied tax, it would be case of 'double taxation' shall also be considered and specifically answered by competent authority while pursuing proceedings as aforesaid. Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan Precision Engineering / Idicula Jacob v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-Korba, Korba / Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-Korba, Korba/ Union of India, New Delhi