JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated May 22, 2006 of the Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur 1, Jaipur whereby the appeals respectively filed by the petitioner and his mother Rani Raghuraj Kumari were dismissed. 2. Contextual facts depict that during the pendency of the appeals before the Commissioner Tax Recovery Officer Ajmer issued proclamation of sale vide order dated Feb. 20, 1997 that was called in question by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Since the appeals were pending, this court on March 22, 2006 directed Commissioner to decide the appeals and pursuant to the direction the appeals were disposed of vide order dated May 22, 2006. The petitioner sought amendment in the writ petition and assailed the said order. 3. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition is raised by Mr. Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3. It is canvassed that since recovery proceedings were initiated against Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), of which Digvijay Singh is KARTA, the writ petition by Digvijay Singh in his personal capacity is incompetent. My attention is invited to section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provides that an individual and HUF are two separate persons and two different entities in the eye of law. Learned counsel placed reliance on Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland v. M/s. Rameshwari Lal Sanwarmal, (1972) 4 SCC 342 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Om Prakash and others, 1999 ITR Vol. 238 page 1044 . 4. Per contra Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since notices were issued to the petitioner in his personal capacity, the writ petition has been filed with the prayer to restrain the Income Tax Department from seeking to recover any purported outstanding dues against late Rao Bir Bikram Singh from the properties belonging to the petitioner individually or as Karla of HUE 5. Having scanned the material on record, I am of the view that since notices were issued to petitioner in the individual capacity the writ petition is maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, being devoid of merits, stands rejected. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Coming to the merits of the matter I notice that arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner were not considered by the Commissioner. Submissions in regard to applicability of Rule 68B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although incorporated in the impugned order was not dealt with. No reasons have been assigned as to why the sale of the property could be resorted after May 31, 1995. The impugned order thus lacks support of the reasons. 7. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated May 22, 2006. I remit the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Jaipur to decide it afresh by a reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Jaipur on January 16, 2007. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******