IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4143 of 2009 M.G.M.COLLEGE & L.S.K.HOSPITAL, KISHANGANJ through Accountant, Sri Sampat Jain, S/o Late Srichand Jain, resident of Kishanganj, P.O. & P.S. Kishanganj, Distt. – Kishanganj …………………………………………. Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhagalpur, and 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Purnea …. Respondents ----with------ CWJC No.4193 of 2009 M.G.M.MEDICAL COLLEGE & L.S.K., KISHANGANJ through Accountant, Sri Sampat Jain, S/o Late Srichand Jain, resident of Kishanganj, P.O. & P.S. Kishanganj, Distt. – Kishanganj …………………………………..…. Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhagalpur, and 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Purnea 4. Dist. Valuation Officer, Income Tax Deptt., Kanpur (UP)……Respondents ----with------ CWJC No. 4824 of 2009 M.G.M.COLLEGE & L.S.K.HOSPITAL, KISHANGANJ through Accountant, Sri Sampat Jain, S/o Late Srichand Jain, resident of Kishanganj, P.O. & P.S. Kishanganj, Distt. – Kishanganj …………………………………..…. Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhagalpur, and 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Purnea ….. Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioners in all cases:- Mr. L.N. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Saran, Advocate. For the Respondents in all cases:- Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mrs. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.O.I. and Mrs. Archana Sinha ---------- 2. 20.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners wherein the demand notice and the assessment of tax have been questioned. 2 It is the case of the petitioners that assessment was revised on the basis of the report of the D.V.O. Based on an assessment done by the D.V.O., the assessment of tax cannot be revised. In support of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 119 ITR 96 as also the judgment of this Court in the case reported in 119 STC 460. It is submitted that since there is inherent lack of jurisdiction, this Court can quash the revised assessment order. We are of the view that the Income Tax Act itself provides for efficacious and alternative remedy as when assessment orders and reassessment orders are passed, by way of filing appeal and further appeal, the question of lack of inherent jurisdiction can also be raised before the appellate authority. If such a question is raised, it has to be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law. If there is, prima facie, a case, the appellate authority will also be free to grant stay subject to final decision of the appeal. In this 3 connection, we also rely on the decision of Apex Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. & Anr Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in AIR 1983 SC 603. If the petitioners file an appeal along with stay petition within two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall hear the stay petition and, if it, prima facie, finds that there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, it may pass appropriate orders disposing of the stay petition within three weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. If stay petition and appeal are filed within two weeks from today, till orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and it is up to the appellate authority to consider the merits of the case and decide the matter according to law. All the three writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. dk ( J.B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )