2022 (6) TMI 1310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act') and impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby the objections raised by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) have been dismissed. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. As per the petitioner he filed his return for the assessment year 2018-2019 which was duly assessed vide order dated 26.03.2021. On 14.03.2022 he was served with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act (Annexure P-1) claiming escapement of income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2018-2019. Along with the notice the petitioner was also supplied with a information forming basis of notice under Section 148A(b). The petitioner responded to the same vide communication dated 21.03.2022 which stand rejected vide im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion to question the assessment otherwise than by the use of this machinery is incompatible with the scheme of the Act. The challenge of the action of the Income-Tax Officer by a writ prohibition or mandamus is , therefore, not available to the assessee." In 'Rasulji Buxji Kathawala vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi and another' (Civil Writ No.44 of 1955, D/d. 2.4.1956) while dealing with the similar situation under the 1922 Act, Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that - "But where as in this case no part of the Act is being attacked, there is, in our opinion, no justification for us to intervene at this stage when other remedies which arc not necessarily onerous are still open to the applicant under the Act. We....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f 1992 with No.1973 of 1992. D/d 17.12.1997), held that - "3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the as....