Mandamus Petition Dismissed: Court Rules Income Tax Disputes Better Settled Through Assessment Process.

The HC dismissed the petition seeking a mandamus for an enquiry and termination of proceedings under the Income Tax Act for specific financial years. The Court determined that disputed factual matters, such as bank transactions, cannot be resolved under Article 226. The petitioner was instructed to respond to notices, cooperate with the Department, and participate in the assessment process. Consequently, the prayer for mandamus was denied, and the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeks mandamus for enquiry on representation and dropping proceedings under Income Tax Act for specified financial years.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an individual, filed a petition seeking a mandamus directing an enquiry based on a representation and dropping of proceedings under the Income Tax Act for the financial years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021. The petitioner received notices under Section 148A(b) and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. However, it was unclear whether these proceedings covered all the financial years mentioned in the petition as the notices and orders provided were only for some of the years. The petitioner also sought clarifications from Punjab National Bank regarding transactions related to his PAN number, which the Bank addressed in a letter stating that the accounts in question were not connected to the petitioner's PAN number.

The Court noted that factual aspects, such as transactions and connections with bank accounts, cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had received final orders under Section 148A(d) and notices under Section 148 of the Act, indicating the need to cooperate with the Department's proceedings and bring the matter to a logical conclusion in accordance with the law. The Standing Counsel highlighted that despite continuous notices, the petitioner had not responded, emphasizing the petitioner's duty to provide explanations and cooperate with the assessment process.

The Court held that a mandamus could not be granted in this case due to the involvement of disputed facts, emphasizing that in assessment matters, filing a representation is insufficient, and the petitioner must respond to notices, appear before the officer, and provide explanations. Consequently, the prayer for mandamus was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to appear in response to notices, cooperate with the Department, and allow the assessment proceedings to proceed as per the law, with no costs imposed.

---