TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is without jurisdiction. The reasons recorded by the respondents are untenable and, otherwise, the authority acted without jurisdiction in causing notice and, subsequently, passing the order dated 08th September, 2015. The notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 disclosed sale of the land measuring 12 hectares of khasra NO.79 to Ku.Afsha Khan (minor) for sum of Rs. 3,76,963/- (mentioned as Rs. 3,67,963/- in the impugned notice), whereas, as per DLC rate, the value of the property was Rs. 3,90,00,000/- (Rs.Three Crore and Ninety Lac only). The notice aforesaid was caused by taking difference of the amount, but, ignoring the fact that the petitioner was shown to be power of attorney holde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale deed, but, it was disclosed in the balance sheet of the petitioner towards assets. While causing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, it was referred in the same manner as was disclosed in the sale deed. A further reference of the gift deed executed by the petitioner has also been given. In the gift deed at Annexure - 5, the petitioner has shown himself to be owner of the property. It is not now open for the petitioner to say that property was not belonging to him, hence, it could not have been accounted against him for causing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The much emphasis has been led against use of words "power of attorney holder" in the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 in ignorance of the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity is without jurisdiction so as to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In the case of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra), the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not been excluded, but, when it can be exercised, has been elaborately discussed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. reported in (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16. Therein, the earlier judgment in the case of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) has been considered so as the judgment in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. VS. ITO reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC). I have gone through the judgment of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Indian Income-tax Act. The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action." The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. is in reference to the earlier judgment in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.(supra), though, the judgment in the case of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) has also been considered. If the facts of this case are considered, I do not find that notice is without jurisdiction so as to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite existence of alternative remedy. Even, I do not find a prim....