Man Singh Tosaira vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

This is an application filed by the petitioner for hearing the writ petition on merits and disposing it of in accordance with law. The challenge in the writ petition is to an order dated 22-3-2006 passed by the respondent ordering a special audit in terms of section 142(2A) of the income tax Act, 1961.

By an order dated 18-12-2006, that order was set aside this Court and the revenue was granted on week''s time to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. D.Commissioner of Income Tax and Others,

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 18-12-2006, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a reply thereto and it appears that after the considering the reply, the revenue passed a fresh order on 19-1-2007 ordering a special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act.

Against the order dated 18-12-2006 passed by this Court, the petitioner preferred a petition for SLP to Appeal (Civil) in the Supreme Court.

On 9-2-2007, the Supreme Court noted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court should have decided the case on merits as well.

It seems that the Supreme Court was not informed that in the meanwhile on 19-1-2007, that is well before 9-2-2007, the revenue had already passed a fresh order and that fresh order was not challenged by the petitioner in this Court or before any other forum. With the facts apparently not having been disclosed in full to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court passed an order dismissing the SLP filed by the petitioner but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief, and after the application is moved before the High Court, the same should be decided the accordance with law. That is how the petitioner is now before us again.

We are of the view that with the passing of the order dated 19-1-2007, as informed by learned counsel for the revenue, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition has become infructuous because the order dated 18-12-2006 that was impugned in the writ petition, was in any case set aside and a fresh order has been passed. The petitioner has not challenged that fresh order, which was passed on 19-1-2007. Certain events have overtaken the petitioner, but these events were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and are brought to our notice only today. We are of the view that since there is an order dated 19-1-2007, which effectively supersedes the order dated 18-12-2006, nothing further survives in the writ petition or in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.