Court dismisses writ petition challenging Income Tax Act notice; emphasizes statutory remedies over writ jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that there was a lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction and provision of documents, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner to address their concerns. The court highlighted the need to exhaust alternate remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of notice issued under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Provision of information and documents to the petitioner.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
4. Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Notice Issued Under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 23rd March 2022, issued under Clause (b) of Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that there was no tangible material linking the purchase of property by M/s RKS Builders to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that there was an absence of a live-link between the statement of income of RKS Builders and the petitioner, making the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer bad in law.

2. Provision of Information and Documents to the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to supply the requisite documents before passing the impugned order dated 7th April 2022, thus violating the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and others' and reiterated by the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court in relevant cases. However, the court noted that the petitioner was provided with reasons for issuing the notice, to which the petitioner failed to respond. The court found that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction was without merit, as the petitioner did not seek the documents in the present petition.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner argued that the firm M/s RKS Builders and the petitioner are different individuals and different assessees for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, any escapement of income at the hands of the firm should not result in reassessment proceedings against the petitioner. The court observed that the petitioner had been served with a notice under Section 148 of the Act, and any issues regarding the assessment could be raised in an appeal if the proceedings culminated in an order of assessment under Section 147 of the Act.

4. Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court discussed whether it should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available. Citing various precedents, including 'C.A. Abraham vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam and another', 'Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. VijayBhai N. Chandrani', and 'Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', the court emphasized that when an alternate remedy is available, it must be exhausted before approaching the writ court. The court concluded that in the present case, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised as the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy available.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy provided under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all available pleas, including those raised in the present petition, before the statutory authority in an appeal.

---