Notice Quashed: Court Invalidates Section 148 Notice Due to Jurisdiction Transfer; Respondent No.4 May Proceed Legally

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice issued under Section 148 by respondent no.3 due to lack of jurisdiction following the transfer of authority to respondent no.4. The court determined that the notice was invalid as the jurisdiction had been transferred before its issuance. The court granted liberty to respondent no.4 to lawfully proceed against the petitioner for the alleged income escaping assessment, emphasizing that there was no prejudice to the respondents due to the extended limitation period. The court did not express opinions on the merits of the claims and disposed of any pending applications.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdictional issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16 and the transfer of jurisdiction from respondent no.3 to respondent no.4.

Contentions of petitioner:
The petitioner challenged the notice under Section 148 as being without jurisdiction due to the prior transfer of jurisdiction to respondent no.4. Emphasized that respondent no.3 had no authority to issue the notice.

Contentions of respondents:
Respondents argued against the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of alternative remedies. Admitted the transfer of jurisdiction but claimed lack of knowledge until later. Contended that the notice was issued in accordance with the law.

Rejoinder of petitioner:
Petitioner cited legal precedents supporting the challenge of notice under Section 148 through a writ petition. Argued that the transfer of jurisdiction was effective before the notice was issued, rendering it invalid.

Court's Consideration:
The court discussed the maintainability of the writ petition against the notice under Section 148, highlighting exceptions for jurisdictional issues. Referred to legal precedents allowing writs in cases of actions without jurisdiction.

The court noted the transfer of jurisdiction from respondent no.3 to respondent no.4, effective from 12.03.2022, extinguishing respondent no.3's authority to assess the petitioner under Section 148.

The court found that the notice issued by respondent no.3 on 01.04.2022 was invalid as the transfer of jurisdiction had already occurred. Emphasized that respondent no.3 failed to transfer the PAN and relevant records to respondent no.4 as directed.

Given the lack of prejudice to the respondents due to the extended limitation period for initiating action, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice issued by respondent no.3. Granted liberty to respondent no.4 to proceed lawfully against the petitioner for alleged income escaping assessment.

The court clarified that it did not express opinions on the claims of either party and disposed of any pending applications.

---