Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 454 (GAU)

Atal Amar Prabhat Kujur v. UOI

2013-07-01

SUBHASIS TALAPATRA, UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2013
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act for quashing the order dt. 24-3-2011 (Annex. 8 to the writ petition) passed by the ITO, Ward No. 1, Agartala, respondent No. 4 herein whereby and whereunder it has been held by the ITO that the petitioner cannot claim such benefit for merely migrating to scheduled State or areas covered by the said section as he is not entitled to get the benefit of exemption u/s 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the State of his origin. 2. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Revenue. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner being a member of scheduled tribe community belonging to Oraon community from the State of Bihar, at present Jharkhand, was appointed as personnel officer in the NEEPCO Ltd. as ST 'candidate. Thereafter, he was transferred to the State of Tripura under his employer, NEEPCO Ltd. While he was working in Tripura, he has deposited the income tax and also submitted his return to the assessing authority for assessment and thereafter he has filed one application dt. 17-2-2011 to the ITO, the respondent No. 4 herein, to refund the tax deposited by him in view of the provisions of section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent No. 4 after considering his application passed the impugned order dt. 24-3-2011. Hence he cannot also claim for refund as his case has been distinguished from the decision in Pradip Kr. Taye and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue at the very outset raised the question of maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that alternative remedy under the provisions of section 246(1)(a) of the said Act is available. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also agreed to the contentions of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel that an alternative remedy under the statute as stated by Mr. Sarma is available. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are not inclined to decide the instant writ petition on merit. 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also agreed to the contentions of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel that an alternative remedy under the statute as stated by Mr. Sarma is available. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are not inclined to decide the instant writ petition on merit. It would meet justice if the petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the CIT(A) within a period of one month from today and on receipt of the appeal, if filed, the appellate authority shall dispose the same in accordance with law. 7. As the petitioner preferred this writ petition before a wrong forum, thus the period as taken before this Court shall be treated as condoned. 8. Accordingly, it is ordered. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of.