JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J. - The petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the business of construction of major projects including Bridges, Flyovers, Office Complexes and other Roads and Buildings. The petitioner concerned is an Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Income Tax Act']. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged notices/orders dated 5th April, 2016, and 28th April 2016 issued by respondent no. 3 to the respondents no. 4 to 9, directing the latter to pay an amount of rupees 32,32,100/-(Thirty-two lac, Thirty-two thousand and One hundred) payable by their account holder namely M/S Construction Engineers Srinagar (the petitioner) . The petitioner, as is apparent from reading of the writ petition and prayer clause, has not challenged any demand notice issued by the respondent no. 3 for payment of arrears of the Income Tax dues.

2. With a view to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, it is necessary to advert to factual antecedents leading to the filing of this petition. The petitioner is a business concern and has been filing, inter alia TDS returns in form 26Q regularly. The respondents, while processing the TDS returns filed by the petitioner, found that TDS statements/returns filed by the petitioner for the financial years 2007-2008 to 2015-2016 had not reported any tax deductions in respect of salary payments made by the petitioner. On the basis of figures and details given by the petitioner in the TDS statements/returns voluntarily filed, the unpaid tax, interest etc was worked out and the demand in this regard was raised under Section 201 (A) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner was thus intimated to deposit a sum of Rs 32, 32,100 (Thirty-two lac. Thirty-two thousand and One hundred) or take corrective action without any further delay. The intimation of outstanding demand issued on 3rd March, 2016, was served upon the petitioner on 31st March, 2016. The respondent no. 3 also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, on 22nd March, 2016, calling upon the petitioner to appear either personally or through his authorized representative to show cause as to why the penalty should not be levied. This show cause notice, too, was received by the petitioner on 24th March, 2016. The petitioner, as it appears from the record as also from the pleadings, did not respond to either the demand notice dated 3rd March, 2016, or show cause notice issued by respondent no. 3 on 22nd March, 2016. Since the demand was not contested by the petitioner, respondent no. 3 took the intimation issued on 3rd March, 2016, as a formal demand for deposit of Income Tax dues under Section 200A, and proceeded to recover the outstanding amount under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. It is in the exercise of powers vested in the Assessing Officer/ Tax Recovery Officer under Section 226 (3) a notice was issued to the J&K Bank, who holds money for and on account of the petitioner-Assessee. The petitioner is aggrieved of the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Srinagar, to the banker of the petitioner for deposit of outstanding liability against the petitioner and is before us in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Respondents have filed their reply and have taken the preliminary objections of maintainability of this petition in the face of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a complete code in itself and provides elaborate mechanism for redressal of grievances of the aggrieved Assessees as well as the department and, therefore, a person aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assessing authorities cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court instead of availing the remedies provided under the Income Tax Act.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The challenge to the