2022 (6) TMI 751 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Denial of natural justice - non considering assessee stand - order passed under Section 148A (d) has been raised contending that the order is erroneous in facts having been passed without considering stand of the petitioner - 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. 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge to order passed under Section 148A(d) for the assessment year 2015-16.
3. Whether the writ court should intervene at the notice stage under Section 148.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 148A(b) and an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 148A(d) was erroneous as it did not consider the petitioner's stand. The primary issue raised was whether the court should intervene at the notice stage under Section 148 when the assessing officer is yet to complete the assessment/reassessment process under Section 147 of the Act.

2. The court referred to previous judgments to analyze the issue. It cited a Division Bench judgment under the old Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which emphasized that the determination of facts and law is entrusted to the Income-tax Officers, and challenging their actions through a writ is not permissible. Another case highlighted that the court should not intervene when other remedies under the Act are available to the assessee. Additionally, a judgment emphasized the importance of the fact-finding procedure before dismissing the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer.

3. The court also referred to a Delhi High Court case where it was held that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during statutory proceedings to challenge any erroneous findings. The Supreme Court's stance was cited, stating that the court cannot strike down the reopening of a case solely based on the sufficiency or correctness of material at the notice stage. The court reiterated the principle that the writ court should not interfere at a premature stage when proceedings are ongoing and statutory remedies are available.

4. Based on the settled legal propositions, the court concluded that interference by the writ court was not warranted at the intermediate stage when the statutory authority had not concluded the proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, clarifying that the decision should not be construed as an opinion on the case's merits. This judgment underscores the importance of allowing the statutory process to unfold before seeking intervention from the court.