ANAND JEWEL HOUSE Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At this stage, the grievance voiced by Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner is that the applications made in terms of the Proviso under Sec. 132(B)(1)(i) of the Income Tax, 1961 by the Petitioner to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) (Investigation), Cuttack followed by reminders on 13/9/2022 followed by reminders on 11/10/2022, 7/11/2022 and 29/11/2022 have not yet been disposed of. He accordingly prays for directions for time bound disposal of the said applications.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court directs that the aforementioned applications of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by the ITO (Investigation), after hearing the Petitioner on a date to be informed to the Petitioner at least one week in advance, by a reasoned order not later than 10/2/2023 and the said order be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter.

(3.) The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any view in the matter. It is further clarified that depending on the order passed by the ITO (Investigation), it will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.