Interference under Article 226/227 premature while reassessment under section 147 pending; section 148/148A(d) raise factual issues

The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that interference under Article 226/227 was premature while reassessment proceedings under section 147 remained pending. The court found the notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) did not, on their face, demonstrate a jurisdictional usurpation but raised disputed factual exercises of jurisdiction for statutory remedies. Given the settled distinction between jurisdictional error and an error within jurisdiction, the HC declined to intervene at this intermediate stage.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 dated 04.04.2022.
3. Whether the writ Court should interfere at the stage of notice under Section 148 when the assessment/reassessment is pending under Section 147 of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice under Section 148 dated 04.04.2022. The petitioner, an assessee under the Act, was asked to show cause for escapement assessment of income for the assessment year 2015-2016. The petitioner sought more time to respond, but the respondent proceeded to pass the order under Section 148A(d) and issued a notice under Section 148 on the same date. The petitioner did not disclose the merits of the case in the writ petition, and no assessment order had been passed under Section 147 of the Act yet.

The primary issue in the present writ petition was whether the writ Court should intervene at the stage of notice under Section 148 when the assessment/reassessment was pending under Section 147 of the Act. The Court referred to past judgments and held that the statutory authority should conclude the proceedings before interference by the writ Court. The Court emphasized that the distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction is crucial, and statutory remedies are available for rectification of errors. The consistent view was that interference at a premature stage is unwarranted, especially when the statutory proceedings are ongoing.

The Court cited various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing that the correctness of the order under Section 148A(d) should be challenged based on factual premises, and statutory remedies should be pursued for rectification. The Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere at the intermediate stage when the proceedings were yet to be concluded by the statutory authority. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, clarifying that the decision should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

---