9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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. Thus, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. - Review Application No.94 of 2022 in/and Civil Writ Petition No.8201 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2022 - Hon ble Mr. Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa And Hon ble Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act (Annexure P-4) and the consequential notice of even date issued under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The contention raised is that order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (Annexure P-4) has been passed without considering reply filed by the petitioner on 28th of March, 2022 (Annexure P-2) raising objections to notice dated 21st of March, 2022 issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 4. The primary issue that arises in the present writ petition is :- Whether at this stage of notice under Section 148, writ Court should venture into the mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 chargeability 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', (2016) 386 ITR , held that - 29. ....The reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer to tentatively believe that taxable income has escaped assessment cannot be brushed aside at the threshold without a fact-finding procedure, more-so when the petitioners are not remediless and hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Woollen Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Centre XI, Range Bombay and others' (Civil Appeals No.1972 of 1992 with No.1973 of 1992. D/d 17.12.1997) , held that - 3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
