Navin Kumar Sinha v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / CIT, Patna / JCIT, Patna / DCIT, Patna / ACIT, Patna / ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna / Union of India, Patna
[Citation -2020-LL-0116-39]

Citation 2020-LL-0116-39
Appellant Name Navin Kumar Sinha
Respondent Name Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / CIT, Patna / JCIT, Patna / DCIT, Patna / ACIT, Patna / ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna / Union of India, Patna
Court HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/01/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags appropriate authority • hypothetical income • relevant material • capital gain • property • rent • computation of capital gain
Bot Summary: The present petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions towards cancellation/quashing the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Patna High Court CWJC No.4468 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 2/3 respondent no.6. Section 48 explanation iii and Section 54 F of the Income Tax Act has been left aside and has taxed the petitioner on hypothetical income. The order of the respondent directly affects the fundamental right of the petitioner and liability has been imposed on hypothetical income which could not be taxed under Section 45 and 48 of the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition, more so, for the reason that the petitioner has concealed the relevant material information from the Court with regard to the status of the project. It is only after repeated queries were put to the learned counsel, that the learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the fact that post execution of agreement dated 30.04.2010, subject matter of lis, the construction is carried out in part and a tenant inducted into the property, from whom huge amount of rent is being charged by the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the provisions of Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act. On this short ground alone, we dismiss the present petition.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4468 of 2019 Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Jugal Kishore Prasad, C/o Vinay Kumar Verma, B-79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna- 800020, presently at 213, Bharat Golf View Apartment, Behind Manipal Hospital, Layout, Old Airport Road, Banglore North, Vimanapura, Karnataka, 560017 Petitioner/s Versus 1. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna- 800001. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, C.R. Building Birchand Patel Path Patna, 800001. 3. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 5. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 6. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(5), Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna- 800001. 7. Union of India through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001 Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) 8 16-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondents. present petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions towards cancellation/quashing order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Patna High Court CWJC No.4468 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 2/3 respondent no.6. Respondent authority has ignored operative part of act under which calculation of capital gain is to be decided. Section 48 explanation iii and Section 54 F of Income Tax Act has been left aside and has taxed petitioner on hypothetical income. order of respondent directly affects fundamental right of petitioner and liability has been imposed on hypothetical income which could not be taxed under Section 45 and 48 of Act. Petitioner is not financial good condition. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain present petition, more so, for reason that petitioner has concealed relevant material information from Court with regard to status of project. It is only after repeated queries were put to learned counsel, that learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to fact that post execution of agreement dated 30.04.2010, subject matter of lis, construction is carried out in part and tenant inducted into property, from whom huge amount of rent is being charged by present petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner invites our attention to provisions of Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 45 of Income Tax Act. Patna High Court CWJC No.4468 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 3/3 Well, we are of considered view that this Court is not fact finding authority. As such, any order passed by Assessing Officer, so assailed being erroneous one question of facts, has to be adjudicated not by writ Court but by appropriate authority constituted under Statute. As such, on this short ground alone, we dismiss present petition. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U Navin Kumar Sinha v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / CIT, Patna / JCIT, Patna / DCIT, Patna / ACIT, Patna / ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna / Union of India, Patna
Report Error