9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding 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. - CWP No. 9655 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present writ petition is :- 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 of the Act ? The debate is not new. While dealing with the similar situation under the old Act i.e. Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, Division Bench of this Court in 'Lachhman Das Nayar and others vs. Hans Raj Puri, Income- Tax Officer, Amritsar and others, 1953 AIR (P H) 55, held that - An examination of the scheme of the Act and the words used in section 34 of the Act and the various cases that I have referred to above show that the legislature has entrusted the determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held that as the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides complete machinery for assessment/ reassessment of tax, assessee is not permitted to abandon that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tically 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 aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
