1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prashant Pallav and Ms. Amrita Sinha for the Income Tax Department.
2. Petitioner approached this Court for a number of reliefs as under:
a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for the quashing of the order dated 18th of September 2019 (Annexure-12)
issued under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same is time-barred and hit by the limitation as prescribed under Section 142A(6) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the same is also beyond the jurisdiction of the valuation officer as the valuation report was made outside the scope of
reference under Section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for the quashing of
the notice bearing number ITBA/AST/S/148/2018- 19/1012873162(1) dated 8th of October 2018 (Annexure-2) sent under Section 148 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 as the same has been issued without proper jurisdiction and sanction.
c. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) of the order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order
dated 27th of December 2019 is passed without assigning proper 'reason to believe', the 'sanction note', or without passing any order on the
objection(s) as raised by the Petitioner.
d. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to stay the operation of the impugned demand notice issued vide letter(s) bearing
number ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1025000229(1) dated 11th of February 2020 (Annexure-16) and Letter bearing number ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-
20/1025157776(1) dated 13th of February 2020 (Annexure-16) by the respondent department during the pendency of the appeal before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi. e. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may think just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
But, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the prayer relating to issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondent no.
2 for disposal of the stay petition which is pending before the respondent no. 2 since February, 2020.
3. On the previous date, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Amrita Sinha representing the respondent department
was allowed short time to obtain instruction in the matter. Today, on instruction, she submits that stay application (Annexure-15) shall be disposed of
within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner should cooperate in the matter. She submits that the rest of the prayers are not fit to be
entertained in writ jurisdiction as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of assessment passed under Section 147 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the statements made by learned counsel for the
department to the limited prayer concerning the disposal of the stay petition.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of on the understanding that the stay petition
preferred by the petitioner shall be disposed of by the respondent no. 2/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner should
cooperate in the matter. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of case.
