Court dismisses petition challenging Income Tax Act order on income escapement for 2018-2019

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the dismissal of objections raised under Section 148A(b) regarding alleged income escapement for the assessment year 2018-2019. The court held that intervention at the notice stage before completion of assessment/reassessment by the assessing officer was not justified, citing past judgments emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for challenging orders. The court concluded that the proceedings were ongoing and interference was unwarranted, dismissing the petition without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and dismissal of objections raised by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148A(b).

Analysis:
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged the order dated 31.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated the same day dismissing objections raised under Section 148A(b) regarding alleged income escapement for the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous as it did not consider the objections raised. The primary issue in this writ petition was whether the court should intervene at the notice stage under Section 148 before the assessing officer completes the assessment/reassessment under Section 147 of the Act.

The court referred to past judgments to address this issue. It cited the decision in 'Lachhman Das Nayar and others vs. Hans Raj Puri' under the old Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, emphasizing that the legislature entrusted the determination of facts and law to the Income-tax Officers, and challenging their actions through writs was not permissible. The court also referenced 'Rasulji Buxji Kathawala vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi' where it was held that intervention was not justified at the notice stage when other remedies under the Act were available.

Moreover, the court mentioned the case of 'Sumit Passi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax' where it was established that the Income Tax Act provided a complete machinery for assessment/reassessment, and invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 was not permitted. The Supreme Court's ruling in 'Raymond Woollen Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Centre XI, Range Bombay' was also cited, emphasizing that the court should not interfere prematurely when proceedings were ongoing, and the correctness of the order could be challenged through statutory remedies.

Based on these precedents, the court concluded that interference at the current stage was unwarranted as the proceedings initiated were yet to be concluded by the statutory authority. The distinction between jurisdictional error and errors within jurisdiction was highlighted, indicating that statutory remedies were available for rectification. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.

---