9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner to the notice under Section 148A(b) has not been considered. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. The primary issue that would arises 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax', (2016) 386 ITR, held that - Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 5787/2022 titled as Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(3) Delhi, while considering the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
