Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 457 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued to the petitioner u/s 148A (b) - 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/reassemment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under Section 147? - HELD THAT - The consistent view is that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory 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 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, validity of notice dated 31.3.2022 under Section 148, and order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 29.03.2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. Analysis: The petitioner sought the quashing of the show cause notice, notice under Section 148, and the order passed under Section 148A (d) for the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issue raised was whether the writ court should examine the controversy at the notice stage under Section 148 before the assessment or reassessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Act. The court referred to past judgments to highlight that the legislature entrusts the determination of facts and law to the Income-tax Officers, and challenging the assessment at this stage is incompatible with the Act's scheme. The court emphasized that the AO must be allowed to complete the assessment/reassessment process before interference by the writ court. The court cited various cases to support the principle that the writ court should not intervene prematurely when the AO has not concluded proceedings. It was reiterated that the Act provides a complete machinery for assessment/reassessment, and the assessee should exhaust remedies under the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226. The court emphasized the distinction between jurisdictional error and errors of law/fact within jurisdiction, stating that statutory remedies exist for rectification of errors. Referring to the consistent view of previous judgments, the court concluded that interference by the High Court under Article 226/227 was not warranted at the intermediate stage of proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the observations made should not be construed as an opinion on the case's merits. The judgment highlighted the importance of allowing the statutory authority to conclude proceedings before seeking judicial intervention, in line with established legal principles and past precedents.
|