9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty aforesaid was shown to be asset of the petitioner in the balance sheet and he had executed the sale deed. If the petitioner is not the owner of the property then while executing the gift deed, why he had shown himself to be the owner. It is not such a case where reasons to believe recorded by the authority is without jurisdiction so as to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed without causing interference in the impugned order as well as in the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 given by the respondents. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to take alternative remedy X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the power of attorney. In view of the above, impugned order as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 deserves to be set aside. The respondents have acted without jurisdiction and authority apart from the fact that no reason to believe for causing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 exists. Learned counsel for the respondent/s has contested the writ petition. The preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition has been raised. The petitioner is having alternative remedy to challenge the order dated 08th September, 2015, but, instead of availing it, this writ petition has been filed. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 and subsequent order dated 08th September, 2015. It is said to be without jurisdiction. The notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 makes a reference of power of attorney holder. The words "power of attorney holder" have been used taking it from the sale deed executed by the petitioner where the consideration shown is of ₹ 3,76,963/- (mentioned as ₹ 3,67,963/- in the impugned notice) as against the value of the property to be ₹ 3,90,00,000/- on DLC rate, making difference of ₹ 3,86,23,037/-. The property afores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially and so a writ of certiorari or prohibition cannot issue. It is well settled however that though the writ of prohibition or certiorary will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. 28. Mr. Sastri mentioned more than once the fact that the company would have sufficient opportunity to raise this question, viz., whether the Income-tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
