9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act') dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-1 ), notice dated 31.3.2022 (Annexure P-4) under Section 148 and order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-3 ) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act. Return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-19 was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The petitioner received notice under Section 148 dated 31.3.2022 (Annexure P-4). The details of the information and the enquiry on the basis of issuance of notice were supplied to the petitioner along with the said notice. The challenge to the order passed under Section 148A (d) has been raised contending that the order is erroneous in facts having been passed without considering sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.44 of 1955, D/d. 2.4.1956) while dealing with the similar situation under the 1922 Act, Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that - "But where as in this case no part of the Act is being attacked, there is, in our opinion, no justification for us to intervene at this stage when other remedies which arc not necessarily onerous are still open to the applicant under the Act. We, therefore, refuse to intervene at this stage in this case, and leave it to the applicant to pursue his remedies under the Income-tax Act so far as the question of his charge- ability to income-tax under the Act, or other matters are concerned." 7. Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Sumit Passi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax', ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et 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 machinery and invoke jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226." 9. Supreme Court in the case of 'Raymond Wooll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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. 11. 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. 12. Needless to say that nothing herein observed shall be construed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
