2022 (6) TMI 519 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued to the petitioner u/s 148A(b) - AO is yet to frame assessment/re-assemment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him u/s 147 - HELD THAT - As 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. As 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 u/s 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 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. Thus, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a review application against an order passed in a civil writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The counsel argued that the order was erroneous and should be reviewed due to an apparent error on the face of the record. The court acknowledged the challenge laid by the petitioner regarding the order and notice issued under the Act. The primary issue raised in the writ petition was whether the court should delve into the merits of the controversy at the notice stage under Section 148 when the assessing officer is yet to complete the assessment/reassessment as required under Section 147 of the Act. The court referred to past judgments to support the view that intervention at such a premature stage is not warranted, emphasizing that the Act provides a complete machinery for assessment and reassessment, and the assessee should exhaust statutory remedies before seeking court intervention. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that interference was not justified at an intermediate stage when proceedings were ongoing, and clarified that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of allowing the statutory authority to complete the assessment/reassessment process before seeking court intervention, emphasizing the availability of remedies under the Income Tax Act and the distinction between jurisdictional errors and errors of law/fact within jurisdiction. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition underscores the need to respect the statutory process and refrain from premature interference in ongoing proceedings.