TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A ] The consistent view is that at the stage where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such pre-mature stage. Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order under Section 148A(d) is being challenged on the factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vested has been wrongly exercised. By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction. For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided. We find that there is no reason to warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) and the order passed under Section 148A (d) has been raised contending that the stand of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration resulting in miscarriage of justice. 3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 4. The primary issue that would arises in the present writ petition is :- Whether at this stage of notice under Section 148, writ Court should venture into the merits of the controversy when AO is yet to frame assessment/re-assemment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under Section 147 of the Act ? 5. The debate is not new. While dealing with the similar situation under the old Act i.e. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chargeability to income-tax under the Act, or other matters are concerned. 7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Sumit Passi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax', (2016) 386 ITR, held that - 29. ....The reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer to tentatively believe that taxable income has escaped assessment cannot be brushed aside at the threshold without a fact-finding procedure, more-so when the petitioners are not remediless and have got equally efficacious recourses under the Act. 30. A somewhat similar dictum is discernible from CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 as it holds that the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, assessee is not permitted to abandon that machinery and invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226. 9. Supreme Court in the case of 'Raymond Woollen Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Centre XI, Range Bombay and others' (Civil Appeals No.1972 of 1992 with No.1973 of 1992. D/d 17.12.1997), held that - 3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
