1 2025:CGHC:20603-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 291 of 2025 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited Through Director Mansukhlal Jain S/o Late Shri Gyanmal Jain, Age About 62 Years Shop No. 2/6, Akash Ganga Supela, Bhilai, Tah. And Distt.- Durg, (C.G.) - 490023 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2 - Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle 1(1) Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai (C.G.) 490001. 5 - The National Faceless Assessment Centre Through The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.07 10:33:17 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.05.2025 1. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPT No. 157/2024 (Arihant Jewellers Private Limited vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was disposed of. 2. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 236/2025 (Dr. Pradeep Sihare vs. Income Tax Officer Ward & Another) vide order dated 30.04.2025, observing as follows : “9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPT No.7129 of2025:CGHC:19546-DB 2008 vide order dated 10.02.2025, holding that admittedly, a Survey was conducted under Section 133 of the Act on 8.7.2003. During the said Survey, a report 3 has been sought from the DEO with regard to construction of the Nursing Home as well as residential unit made by the assessee. From the report of the DEO, it has been revealed that certain unexplained amount of investment has been made. It was further revealed that the expenditure incurred shown by the assessee was much below the assessed cost of the construction. So considering this clear difference in the cost of construction, a reason to believe has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in respect of the subject Assessment Years and the case was reopened by exercising the powers vested in him under Section 147 of the Act. Even though the Assessee had raised objections for reopening, however, the same was turned down by a speaking order dated 12.12.2008. Thus, it is explicit that the Assessing Officer has recorded the reasons in view of the report of the District Valuation Officer. Moreover, the Survey conducted reveals that the assessee has not truly disclosed his income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the relevant Financial Years. The learned Single Judge concluded that the Assessing Officer has recorded his own valid and proper satisfaction for existence of reason to believe that the income of the relevant assessment years has escaped assessment. Thus, the notice cannot be treated to have been passed without2025:CGHC:19546-DB jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner would get full opportunity to raise his defence in the appellate proceedings and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner on merits. 4 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the Assessing Authority has already passed its fresh order on 08.04.2025 against which, the appellant herein has alternative remedy to raise all his grievance in the CIT appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the law. No cost(s).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 236/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 3. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 236/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not 5 to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 236/2025. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in WA No. 236/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet