NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the notice, annexure-"B", issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) THE petitioner has deposited Rs. 4,79,000 against various fixed deposit receipts with respondent No. 2-bank as per details, annexure-A. Respondent No. 1-Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Indore, by notice dated October 21, 1987 (annexure-R1-F), issued under Section 226(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has required respondent No. 2-bank to pay Rs. 2,06,659 towards income-tax due against Binodiram Balchand, out of the said amount deposited in the name of the petitioner. It is this notice which is under challenge.

(3.) AT the outset, I have to observe that this petition involves disputed questions of fact inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, the assessee is a Hindu undivided family business concern with which he has no connection while, on the other hand, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the assessee is a partnership firm of which the petitioner is a partner liable to pay tax. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into or adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction, This petition, therefore, must fail on this ground alone and the petitioner should be left to agitate the matter at the appropriate forum.