The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ court should not interfere at such a premature stage.
The court ruled that 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 a vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law or fact within jurisdiction. For rectification of errors, statutory remedy has been provided.
The court, while dismissing the petition, held 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 the intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority.
Issue Raised
The issue raised was whether, at this stage of notice under Section 148, the writ court should venture into the merits of the controversy when the AO is yet to frame an assessment or reassessment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under Section 147.
Facts
The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm. The petitioner received notice under Section 148A(b). The details of the information on the basis of which notice under Section 148A(b) has been issued were supplied to the petitioner as well.
The petitioner responded to the notice and raised objections. The objections were decided by the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. Along with the order, the petitioner was also served with notice under Section 148.
The assessee has challenged the order passed under Section 148 A(d) along with notice issued under Section 148.
The assessee contended that the response filed by the petitioner to the notice under Section 148A(b) has not been considered.
Case Information
Case Name : Red Chilli International Sales V/s Income Tax Officer and another
Judicial Level & Location : Punjab And Haryana High Court
Appeal Number : CWP No.10073 of 2022
Date of Ruling : 02/06/2024
Judges : Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, Justice Pankaj Jain
Counsel for Tax Payer: Nikhil Goyal
Counsel for Department : Urvashi Dhugga
