' AAMER FAROOQ, J. --- The petitioner and his brother are carrying Catering Business under the name & style, "M/s Shaheen Catering & General Services at shop No.1-C Mamoon Jee Road, Tariqabad, Lalkurti, Rawalpindi. Father of the petitioner namely Gulzar Muhammad was engaged in the business of Kariana Store under the name & style Shaheen Kariana Store, Shop No.693, Mamoon Jee Road, Tariqabad, Lalkurti, Rawalpindi with NTN No.02- 300048810. The petitioner's father died on 19.10.2001 and after that his business was closed down and the Income Tax Authorities were informed accordingly. The petitioner in the instant petition has assailed notice dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No.4 under section 138(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 whereby the demand of Rs. 90,450/-(Rupees ninety thousand, four hundred & fifty only) was raised and thereafter vide letter dated 02.07.2010 receiver was appointed for recovery of above mentioned amount under rule 179 of Income Tax Recovery Rules, 2002.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner started business in the financial year 2003-04 and the amount being claimed does not pertain to business run by the petitioner. It was further contended that the reply was made to the respondents, however, despite the same, they are seeking recovery to the tune of Rs. 90,450/- (Rupees ninety thousand, four hundred & fifty only). The learned counsel further submitted that the notice of recovery as well as appointment of receiver is patently illegal and without authority.
3. The learned counsel for respondents, inter alia- submitted that the instant petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has alternate remedy under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
It was further submitted that_ the contentions raised by the petitioner are not correct inasmuchas alongwith petition, the petitioner has appended assessment order which pertains to the business run by the petitioner and the same is for the year 2002-03.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the above mentioned notice by respondent No.4 has categorically submitted that he started his business in the year 2003-04, however, alongwith petition has appended assessm ent order which pertains to the year 2002-03. In the referred assessm ent order the Taxation Officer, Income & Wealth Tax Circle-30 has categorically observed that the case of the petitioner does not fall as successor in business of Shaheen Kariana, Proprietor Gulzar Muhammad. It is not clear from the record available that the demand which is being raised by the respondents whether pertains to the business run by the petitioner or his father. In the parawise comments filed by the petitioner it has categorically been submitted that the petitioner's father also was engaged in the Catering Business. The referred controversy cannot be resolved in the present proceedings as it involves disputed questions of facts. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the impugned notice is patently illegal. The petitioner has alternate remedy under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
5. In view of above, the present petition is not competent and, therefore, is dismissed.