AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents states at the Bar that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the order u/s 154 of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''), which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), and by virtue of the amendment the petitioners have a right to file revision petition u/s 264 of the Act against the impugned order/intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, and that the petitioners should be relegated to that remedy. He further states that in case the petitioners relegate to the aforesaid remedy the recovery which is sought to be made from the petitioners by the department should remain stayed with regard to the assessment year in dispute. Mr. Vaish, the learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the suggestion and the concession offered by the learned counsel for the respondents and submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as premature with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court as and when required.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as premature with directions to the department not to effect recovery till the decision of the appeal and revision by the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals).