Court upholds Income Tax Act notice, advises Tribunal interim protection. No interference due to factual disputes.

The court declined to interfere with the notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessing authority had made a definitive finding in the assessment order rejecting the petitioner's claim. The court emphasized that factual disputes were beyond its purview. Additionally, the petitioner was advised to seek interim protection from the Tribunal during the appeal process instead of challenging the notice directly. Consequently, the court rejected the writ petition, stating that there was no justification for interference with the notice at that stage.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Request for withdrawal of notice and contention regarding recovery proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner was assessed to tax under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a demand of Rs. 4,56,20,628. The challenge in this case was limited to a notice issued under section 226(3) of the Act to a specific entity. The notice demanded the deposit of a certain amount, and the petitioner contended that the amount belonged to a different entity, as per an application made to the CIT, Central, Kanpur. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the notice based on this contention. However, the court found that the assessing authority had not accepted the petitioner's claim, and a definitive finding had been made in the assessment order. The court declined to interfere in the matter, stating that factual disputes were beyond its purview.

2. The petitioner raised two main contentions regarding the withdrawal of the notice and the efficacy of approaching the Tribunal for stay of recovery proceedings. Firstly, the petitioner had applied for withdrawal of the notice, citing ownership of the disputed amount by another entity. Secondly, the petitioner argued that seeking a stay from the Tribunal pending appeal was futile as the Tribunal might not decide on the stay application until the CIT, Central, Kanpur, addressed the petitioner's application. The court, however, held that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy of seeking interim protection from the Tribunal during the appeal process. The court emphasized that the Tribunal had the authority to grant such protection and advised the petitioner to pursue that avenue. Consequently, the court rejected the writ petition, stating that there was no justification for interference with the impugned notice at that stage.

---