https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28142 Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was held inappropriate where an assessee challenged proceedings before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B on the ground that the variation between returned income and proposed income did not cross the prescribed limit. The availability of statutory remedies by appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, together with the possibility of reference on a question of law, weighed against intervention. Since the rectification by the Income-tax Officer had already been appealed and its legality was pending before the appellate authority, and the draft assessment on rectified figures appeared to satisfy Section 144B, the proceedings were treated as prima facie within jurisdiction and the writ petition failed. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:49:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28142 Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was held inappropriate where an assessee challenged proceedings before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 144B on the ground that the variation between returned income and proposed income did not cross the prescribed limit. The availability of statutory remedies by appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, together with the possibility of reference on a question of law, weighed against intervention. Since the rectification by the Income-tax Officer had already been appealed and its legality was pending before the appellate authority, and the draft assessment on rectified figures appeared to satisfy Section 144B, the proceedings were treated as prima facie within jurisdiction and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28142