1 CGHC010158192023 2026:CGHC:32910 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 136 of 2023 BEC Infra Private Limited Premises No. 29, C.C. Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Delhi (Through Director Ashish Jain S/o Arvind Jain Aged About 47 Years), R/o 43, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- Union of India through Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2- Chief Commissioner of Incom Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3- Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax Circle (1), Incom Tax office, 32/ 32, Bunglows, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate For respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Central Government Counsel Ms. Ankita Gauraha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.(i) to call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 (ii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned notice issued on 05/03/2023 under clause (a) of section 148 of the Act [Annexure-P/1] and all the proceedings flowing through said order. (iii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act [Annexure-P/2] and all the proceedings flowing through said order. (iv) To declare illegal and quash impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act [Annexure-P/3] and all proceedings flowing through said notice. (v) To stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice [Annexure-P/3] and direct Respondent authorities not to pass final orders till disposal of present petition. (vi) 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 to prefer an 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. Agrawal 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. 3 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. 6. 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 Nadim