IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11788 of 2011 ====================================================== M/S Princeton Niketan Pvt. Ltd., 004, Mirambika Apartment, Boring Road, Patna, through its Managing Director Mr. Jitendra Singh, Son of Sri C. Singh, Resident of Flat No.006, Rameshwaram Apartment, Mitra Mandal Compound, Boring Road, Patna-800001 at present Resident of Flat No.703, Block-C, Kaushalya Estate, Bandar Bagicha, Patna-800001. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax-II, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Dakbanglow, Frazer Road, Patna. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 05-09-2011 The petitioner, an assessee, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the assessment order dated 31st December 2007 for the assessment year 2005-06 and the demand of Rs.1,58,40,215.00. The order of assessment is under challenge before the Patna High Court CWJC No.11788 of 2011 (6) dt.05-09-2011 2 / 2 2 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Pending the appeal the petitioner has paid around Rs. 46 lacs against outstanding dues. It is now the claim of the petitioner that the remainder of the demand be stayed till the appeal is heard and decided. Let it be noted that it has come on record that the appeal is filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in 2008. Pending the appeal there was some recovery proceeding and an amount of Rs.15 lacs was realized from the bank. That amount was released on the petitioner’s depositing a cheque in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs. The said cheque on presentation to the bank was dishonored. It is evident that the concerned officer did not act as a prudent officer. In respect of dishonor of the cheque no criminal action was taken against the petitioner nor was an effort made to recover the remainder of the Government dues. The matter is not fit for our intervention. Let the petitioner approach the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for early hearing of the appeal. Petition is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)