IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4466 of 2019 Pravin 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 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 Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, 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 respondent no.6. Respondent authority has ignored operative Patna High Court CWJC No.4466 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 2/3 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. Well, we are of considered view that this Court is Patna High Court CWJC No.4466 of 2019(8) dt.16-01-2020 3/3 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 Pravin Kumar Sinha v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / CIT, Patna / JCIT, Patna / DCIT, Patna / ACIT, Patna / ITO, Ward-6(5), Patna