^) HEGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Wnt Petmon No.1675 OF 20Qo. PETITIONER Vs. Mohan Lal Jain S/o. Late Shri Premraj Shrishrimal Aged about 78 years, Prop. M/s. Saheii Jeweilers,Gandhl Chowk, Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS K ^ s. PETJTiQNER 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2,Bhiiai (C.G.) 2. Commissioner of tncomeTax, New Centrai Revenue Buliding, Civii Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North BIock, New Delhi. Wrst Petltion No.1878 OF 2005. Suni! Kumar Jaln S/o. Mohan Lai Jain Aged about 44 years, Prop. EVI/s. Saheli Jeweiiers, 26 Civic Centre, Bhiiai (C.G.) Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax 2, Bhilai (C.G.) 2. Commissioner of income Tax, New Central Revenue Buiiding, Civii Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Union of india Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Deihl. Present: Shri Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate wlth Shri NeeSabh Dubey, learned counsei forthe petitioner. Shri Amit Choudhary, iearned StandEng Counsei for income Tax Department. RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26th June 2Q06) -ST- -^- These writ petitions were presented in this Court on 20 Aprii 2005 caliing in question the iegaiity of the notice (Annexute-P/8) dated 30th IVtarch 2005 issued under Sectlon 148 Income Tax Act 1961, (for short 'the Act') proposing to reopen the assessment. It appears that ssnce this Court had not stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notlce (Annexure-P/8), the Assessing Offscer reopened the case and passed assessmerst orders. At the time of hearing, Shri Amit Choudhan/, iearned Standlng CounseE appearing for the income Tax Department wouid submit that the assessment so made by the Assessing Officer was subsequently annuiied on 29.05.2006 by the Commlssioner of income Tax (AppeaEs). !n view ofthis deveiopment, In my considered opinion, there Is no/need to adjudicate upon the legaiity of the impugned notice.dated 30.03.2005. Nevertheiess, !earned counsel for the petitioner wouEd submit that Annexure-P/8 was ex fscie iliegai and, therefore, it shouid be condemned as iilegal. A Couft undertakes adjudlcation of a lis for resoSution only in order to grant a reiief to an aggrieved party and wouid, nay, shouid not undertake adjudication of any Issue or point as an academic matter. That Is the weii settSed posltlon in law. As on today, in view of the development noted supra, it cannot be said that the petitloner is an aggrieved party, because, the reassessment made by the assessing offlcer which was agalnst the petitloners* interest was .annuEled by the Commlssioner of Encome Tax (Appeais) himself vide order dated 26.03.2002. Looking from any angle, there is not need to declde these writ petitlons on merit. They are accordingEy dismlssed as unnecessaiy. Nocosts. 1 Sd/- Chief Justice ^