9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148 dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. He has been served with a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act (Annexure P-1) to show cause as to why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued to him as the income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2015-2016 has escapement assessment. Along with the show cause notice the petitioner has also been supplied with the information which forms basis of proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that though he prayed for more time to respond to the notice but the respondent proceeded on to pass order under Section 148A(d) on 04.04.2022. On the same date notice under Section 148 of the Act was also issued requiring the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his machinery is incompatible with the scheme of the Act. The challenge of the action of the Income-Tax Officer by a writ prohibition or mandamus is, therefore, not available to the assessee." In 'Rasulji Buxji Kathawala vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi and another' (Civil Writ No.44 of 1955, D/d. 2.4.1956) while dealing with the similar situation under the 1922 Act, Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that - "But where as in this case no part of the Act is being attacked, there is, in our opinion, no justification for us to intervene at this stage when other remedies which arc not necessarily onerous are still open to the applicant under the Act. We, therefore, refuse to intervene at this stage in this case, and leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at this premature stage." Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5787/2022 titled as Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(3) Delhi, while considering the same question held that: "6. Though it is the petitioner's case that the impugned order is erroneous on facts, yet this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the course of proceedings before different statutory forums to show that the finding of fact arrived at was erroneous. Moreover, at this stage, no assessment order has been passed and it has only been observed that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such a 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. In the light of aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
