9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) and order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-3 ) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act. Return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16 was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. The petitioner received notice under Section 148A (b) dated 20.03.2022 (Annexure P-1). 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 stand of the petitioner. 3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 are 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 te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Woollen Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Centre XI, Range Bombay and others' (Civil Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
