IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.20664 of 2010 ====================================================== Smt.Babli wife of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, r/o Hathi Chowk, Colombia Kothi, P.S. Mithanpura, Dist. Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Commissioner of Income tax, Muzaffarpur having its Office at Bela Kothi, Muzaffarpur. 2. Income tax Officer, Ward -1, (1), Muzaffarpur having its Office at Bela Kothi, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.V.Pathy with Mr. Abhi Sarkar, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Archana Sinha with Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 8 21-07-2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the assessee against the notices issued under Section 148 (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008- 2009. Pending this petition, pursuant to the impugned notices, the orders of reassessment have been made on 28th December 2010. The orders of reassessment have also been challenged before us. Patna High Court CWJC No.20664 of 2010 (8) dt.21-07-2011 2 Learned Advocate Mr. D.V. Pathy has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner had filed income tax return for the concerned assessment years. She had disclosed the investment made in a building at Muzaffarpur. The said returns were processed and assessment orders were made by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has, relying upon the opinion of the Departmental valuation officer, reopened the assessment on the premise that the investment disclosed by the petitioner was not correct, the assessee had failed to disclose her true income and that part of her income had escaped assessment. The petition is extensively argued by the learned advocates Mr. D.V. Pathy appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Raj sinha appearing for the department. In view of the reassessment orders made by the assessing authority, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The petitioner shall have liberty to challenge the orders of reassessment before the appellate authority. In the appeals against the orders of reassessment the assessee can raise all the issues that have been raised in the present petition. For the aforesaid reason we dispose of the petition. The petitioner assessee will be at liberty to challenge the orders of Patna High Court CWJC No.20664 of 2010 (8) dt.21-07-2011 3 reassessment before the appellate authority. The assessee will be at liberty to raise all possible issues available to her. Pending the appeals before the appellate authority no coercive recovery will be made from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders of reassessment. Subject to the above direction writ petition stands disposed of. M. Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)