Anshul Jain Vs PCIT (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential notice issued under Section 148. The petitioner, an assessee under the Act, had filed his return for assessment year 2018-19, which was assessed on 26.03.2021. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148A(b) dated 14.03.2022 was issued alleging escapement of taxable income for the relevant assessment year. The petitioner submitted objections through a communication dated 21.03.2022, which were rejected by the impugned order dated 31.03.2022.
The petitioner argued that the order under Section 148A(d) was erroneous because the objections raised had not been properly considered and sought quashing of both the order and the consequential notice under Section 148.
The High Court framed the primary issue as whether, at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148, the writ court should examine the merits of the controversy when the Assessing Officer had yet to complete reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.
The Court referred to several judicial precedents, including Lachhman Das Nayar vs. Hans Raj Puri, Rasulji Buxji Kathawala vs. Income Tax Commissioner, Sumit Passi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, and the Supreme Court decision in Raymond Woollen Mills Limited vs. Income Tax Officer. These decisions consistently held that the Income Tax Act provides a complete statutory mechanism for assessment, reassessment, imposition of penalty, and appellate remedies, and that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked at a premature stage when statutory proceedings are still pending.
