JUDGMENT : This petition is directed against an order (annex P-18) dated 4.3.2011, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jabalpur against the Project Officer, National Highways Authority of India, PIU Narsinghpur, Shri Ramdas Bhawan, Near Bargi Colony, Narsinghpur for the financial year 2008-09, assessment year 2009-10, in which the authority has found that of the certificate dated 30.06.2008 for lower deduction of tax at source issued by the I.T.O., Delhi was not in accordance with law. It is further held by the authority that the certificate issued under Section 197(1) of the Income Tax Act is prospective only and not retrospectively. The contention of the petitioner before this court is that the aforesaid certificate was issued by I.T.O., Delhi, on the basis of which, the petitioner submitted its return to the authority but because of the order (annexure P-18), now the respondent No.2 has issued a letter (annexure P-19), directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.31,03,54,504/- alongwith interest thereon Rs. 10,86,24,076/- and directed recovery of the aforesaid amount from the bills of the petitioner. It is submitted that though the order has been passed against respondent No.2, but it effects to the petitioner. Shri Rohit Arya, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that against the order (Annexure P-18), a remedy of filing of appeal is provided under Section 246(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that any assesse, aggrieved by any of the orders mentioned in the section can prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is further submitted that the legislation has not used the word the assessee. The petitioner is an assessee, if it is aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-18), it can prefer an appeal before the CITA. As the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal against the order Annexure P-19, so this petition be not entertained and the same may be dismissed. Though, the aforesaid contention is opposed by Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the definition of assessee, the petitioner is not covered and an appeal on behalf of petitioner would not be incompetent. Though, the aforesaid contention is opposed by Shri Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the definition of assessee, the petitioner is not covered and an appeal on behalf of petitioner would not be incompetent. But from the perusal of Section 246-A, we find that the legislation has used the word 'any assessee' and is not used the word 'the assessee', so we find that the objection raised by Shri Arya has substance and the petitioner should firstly avail the remedy of filing statutory appeal against the order Annexure P-18 before the CITA. Accordingly, the objection of Shri Arya is sustained and this petition is not entertained at this stage and is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order before the CITA, in accordance with law. However, the question of maintainability of appeal is left open, which can be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), after hearing the parties. In view of the aforesaid objection of the complainant, at this stage, this petition is not entertained and the petitioner is permitted to avail the remedy of filing appeal against the order (Annexure P-18). Considering the facts of the case, we direct that for a period of two weeks from today, respondent No.2 shall not give effect the letter Annexure P-19. In the meantime, petitioner may approach to the Commissioner of Appeals for interim order and in case, filing of such an application, the Commissioner of Appeals shall consider the aforesaid application expeditiously. At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Nema that Commissioner (Appeals) be further directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. To this, Shri Arya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that Commissioner of Appeals is having one additional charge, so no time period may be fixed to decide the appeal. We are not issuing any directions in respect of this prayer of appellant that we dispose of the matter with the expectation that the Commissioner of Appeals would expedite the hearing of the appeal. No order as to costs.