9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of order u/s 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 authority. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA AND HON BLE MR. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of impugned notice the petitioner has only been asked to file return. No assessment order has been passed under Section 147 of the Act as yet. 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 (P H) 55, held that - An examination of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 have got equally efficacious recourses under the Act. 30. A somewhat similar dictum is discernible from CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 as it holds that the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tre 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 of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
