| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1550 (Karn-HC) : (2020) 273 TAXMAN 0179 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Since question of whether notice issued under section 148 was justified or not, is a question of fact and as questions of fact cannot be gone into by a writ court, therefore it would necessarily have to be done by concerned authorities.
|
Reassessment - Validity of Notice issued under section 148 - Remedy under writ jurisdiction when matter involved questions of fact -
Aggrieved by order passed by Single Judge, in dismissing writ petition of assessee, instant writ appeal was filed. Issue was as regards validity of notice issued under section 147. Held: In the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy, it would be improper for a writ court to exercise its jurisdiction. The question of whether the notice issued under section 147 was justified or not, a question of fact. As questions of fact cannot be gone into by a writ court, it would necessarily have to be done by concerned authorities. Even assuming that Single Judge exercised writ jurisdiction, then a reference as to why alternative remedy is not an efficacious remedy would have to spelt out. Even on considering alternative and efficacious remedy, rights of assessee were not infringed only because he has to file an appeal against said order. There was no reason to interfere with well considered order passed by Single Judge.
Followed:CIT & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2200 (SC); Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT(A) & Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 338; GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 72 : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC); Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4513, 4514 of 1983, W.P. Nos. 3363, 3364 of 1983, dt. 13-4-1983]; Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. ITO (1965) 57 ITR 637 (SC) : 1965 TaxPub(DT) 0307 (SC); Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes Dhubri [Civil Appeals Nos. 86 to 97 of 1962, dt. 4-2-1964]; Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) : 1961 TaxPub(DT) 0130 (SC); M/s. Telekom Malaysia Berhad v. UOI 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1005 (Karn-HC); Jt. CIT v. M/s. Dell India (P) Ltd. (2016) 382 ITR 310 (Karn) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1720 (Karn-HC); Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 367 ITR 773 (Karn) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 4081 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. :
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|