IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7093 of 2020 Kumar Cement through its Partner Gagendra Kumar, Main Road, Phulwarisharif, P.O. and P.S. Phulwarisharif, Patna 801505 ... ... 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, Bir Chand Patel Path Patna. 800001. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow Road, Patna 800001. 4. Income Tax officer Ward 2(3) Biharsharif, Nalanda 803101 Respondent/s Appearance : For Petitioner/s : Mr.Prakash Sahay, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-08-2020 Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s): i. To quash order dated 04.10.2028 annexure-3 to petition passed u/s 144/147 of Income Tax Act by respondent no. 4 of Bihar Sharif. Petitioner do not fall under his territorial jurisdiction of respondent 4 as petitioner is in filing return at Patna. Petitioner regularly filing return at Patna and has no link to Biharsharif. ii. For that petitioner has not been served any notice u/s 148 before passing order u/s 144/147 of Income Tax Act. order is in violation of Law Patna High Court CWJC No.7093 of 2020 dt.20-08-2020 2/3 of Natural Justice. iii. For that petitioner s income and expenditure was considered while passing order of M/S Arvind Enterprises. Prop Gagendra Kumar, to whom petitioner gave advances against purchase but Income Tax form do not have any column thus amount was shown as unsecured loan. While passing order of M/S Arvind Enterprises, Prop Gagendra Kumar petitioner s income was clubbed. Thus there are two orders for same amount. iv. For that to quash Bank attachment for recovery against annexure 4 to petition as order u/s 144/147 is bad in eye of law. After matter was heard, Shri Prakash Sahay, learned counsel for petitioner, fairly states that petitioner shall take recourse to statutory remedies by way of filing appeal/revision. Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Revenue, assures that as and when petitioner takes such recourse to such remedy and also files application seeking removal of order of attachment of Bank Account, said application (for interim order) shall positively be considered and decided by appropriate authority within period of thirty days thereafter. We are not in agreement with submission made Patna High Court CWJC No.7093 of 2020 dt.20-08-2020 3/3 by learned counsel for petitioner that impugned order is ex facie illegal and void ab initio. issue of territorial jurisdiction is question of fact, left to be adjudicated by appropriate authority. writ petition stands disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.08.2020 Transmission Date Kumar Cement v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2, Patna / Income-tax officer Ward 2(3), Nalanda