1 2026:CGHC:24745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 35 of 2018  Kailash Agrawal S/o Late Shri Puranmal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years Prop. M/s Balaji Enterprises And Mantu Transport Khlindi Kunj Kabir Chowk Police Station Jutemill Thana Raigarh Chhattisgarh. P I N , 496001 ... Petitioner versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Aaykar Bhawan Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax , Range - 1 Mahima Complex Vyapar Vihar , Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Income Tax Officer - 3 Aaykar Bhawan Chakradhara Nagar District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.R. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 to call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 to quash the notice u/s.148 of the Act [Annexure-P/1(a)] and all proceedings following said notice. 10.3 to declare that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s.147 through impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act are without jurisdiction, being based on SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.19 10:23:49 +0530 2 change of opinion. 10.4 to quash the re-assessment order [Annexure- P/1(b)] passed on the basis of notice u/s.148 of the Act issued without jurisdiction. 10.5 to stay operation of impugned order [Annexure-P/1(b)] till disposal of present petition. 10.6 to pass such other and/ or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that there is efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the petitioner. He may prefer appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] according to the provisions of Section 246A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At this stage, Mr. Rao would seek permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach appellate authority. However, he would pray that a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by respective Advocates, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is granted 30 days time to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall decide it expeditiously after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant