Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 6 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: [1988]169ITR132(PATNA)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
2. The dispute is whether the deposit that was made with the Central Coal Fields Ltd. at Ranchi, by different drafts on different dates as contained in annexure-13 issued by the State Bank of India, Kuju Branch, belong to Ajay Kumar, who has been assessed under the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Officer at Hazaribagh or to Ajay Kumar Agarwal of Varanasi, who has been assessed by the Income-tax Officer at that place.
3. According to the petitioner, the money under those drafts as contained in annexure-13 was deposited by him and Ajay Kumar, who has been assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Hazaribagh, has nothing to do with that money. According to the Department, Ajay Kumar of Varanasi has nothing to do with this amount and it was deposited by Ajay Kumar of Ramgarh Cantonment with the Central Coal Fields Ltd.
4. Earlier, a Bench of this court had directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the matter and report to this court. The report has been received. The report of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was vehemently challenged by Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. The question that is required to be decided is whether Ajay Kumar Agarwal of Varanasi has deposited the amount by different drafts as contained in annexure-13 with the Central Coal Fields Ltd. It was not disputed by Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that if it is proved as a fact that the drafts were not deposited by Ajay Kumar of Ramgarh Cantonment, the same could not have been attached in pursuance of the order of assessment made in the case of Ajay Kumar of Ramgarh Cantonment.
6. In the writ jurisdiction, in view of the serious dispute with regard to the facts, it is not possible for us to decide whether the amount as shown in annexure-13 was deposited by Ajay Kumar Agarwal of Varanasi or by Ajay Kumar of Ramgarh Cantonment.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a suit. The petitioner may, if so advised, take steps before the appropriate forum to establish his title with regard to that amount.
8. We make it clear that any opinion recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shall be of no avail to the respondents, in any future proceedings. For the reason that the respondents have notice about the stand of the petitioner, no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be given by the petitioner to the respondents. The matter shall be decided on the basis of the evidence that will be brought on record by the parties.