2026:JHHC:9119-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 2007 of 2026 Nand Kishore Bansal, son of Ishwar Lal Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Balajee Earth Movers, Main Road, Near Ashoka Printers, Ramgarh Cantt., P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, presently residing at 12A, Vipul Agora Tower, Ground Floor, M.G. Road, Near Sahara Mall, P.O.- Railway Road, P.S.- DLF Phase 3, District- Gurugram ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), through its Chairman, having its office at North Block, New Delhi 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Dhanbad 4. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT)/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-1, Hazaribagh 5. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi ... … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C., I.T. Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 01.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, by instituting this petition in 2026, challenges the notice dated 28.03.2021 issued by the respondent no. 4 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in this case, the officer, who issued the notice, had no jurisdiction because the amount involved was less than Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, such notice, if at all, could have been issued only by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). He relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. 2026:JHHC:9119-DB 2 Union of India reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 70 (Bombay) to support this contention. This decision, in turn, relies on CBDT Instruction No. 01 of 2011 dated 31.01.2011. 4. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, the learned counsel for the Revenue, submits that there was no jurisdictional error whatsoever in the issue of the impugned notice given the statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on C. Krishnan Vs. the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(4), Erode and Others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8423, he submits that the CBDT circular fixing monetary limit for officers to deal with the cases was not a rigid limit and the same was issued only for equitable distribution of work. Besides, he points out that in this case, the officer who has issued the notice, has acted within the monetary limits prescribed under the CBDT instruction, unlike in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain (supra). 5. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav also submitted that this petition is barred by delay and laches. He submitted that though the impugned notice was issued in 2021, no objection based on alleged jurisdictional defect was ever raised. He submitted that an assessment order was passed and the same was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, where again, no such objection was raised. In appeal, the matter was remanded to the proper officer for reassessment. It is at that stage that such objection has been raised by filing the present petition. He submitted that this is yet another reason why the decision in Ashok Devichand Jain (supra) would not apply and the petitioner should be relegated to the normal remedy of appeal, 2026:JHHC:9119-DB 3 now that the reassessment proceedings are concluded by order dated 30.03.2026 as stated by Mr. Dibya Prashant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and we are satisfied that this is a case where we should not entertain the petition but leave it open to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority in a challenge to reassessment order dated 30.03.2026. 7. In the appeal, it would be open to the petitioner to urge the contention now raised so that the Appellate Authority can examine such contention in the context of the CBDT instruction dated 31.01.2011 and the decisions of the Bombay and the Madras High Court. If there are any other decisions, even those could be examined by the Appellate Authority. 8. This is a case where no objection was raised at the earliest instance. Even after a reassessment order was made pursuant to the impugned notice, no such objection was raised in the appeal. The objection has been belatedly raised, and this is yet another reason why we are not inclined to entertain this petition, but leave it open to the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy of appeal available under the statute. 9. No exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner to persuade us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction when the statute has provided an alternate and efficacious remedy, which was earlier resorted to by the petitioner in the same manner. 10. For the above reasons, we dismiss this petition with liberty to the 2026:JHHC:9119-DB 4 petitioner to file an appeal. If such an appeal is indeed filed, the same should be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the law. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions, including the one now raised in this petition, and liberty is granted to the respondents as well to urge all permissible defences under the law. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty in the above terms. No costs. 12. I.A. No. 3575 of 2026 also stands disposed of accordingly. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 01, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 04.04.2026