Manab Paul v. Union of India & Ors.

this Court had not entertained the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy against the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, while in 3 the present case petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act by attempting to make out a case that no enquiry was conducted under Section 148A(a) of the Act before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act but admitted fact is that notice of enquiry under Section 148A(a) of the Act was issued to the petitioner which the petitioner did not respond and furthermore in the said decision the notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act was not the subject matter of challenge and further the aforesaid order is an interim order considering the facts and circumstances involved in the said case which is different from the present case. In addition, none of the decisions cited by the petitioner is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and as discussed hereinabove, now at this stage after passing of the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, petitioner intends to challenge the impugned notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act against which he had chosen to not to give any response to the same which is matter of record, does not deserve interference. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion one order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2nd September, 2022 in the case of Anshul Jain –Vs- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14823/2022) is very relevant which is quoted herein below: “What is challenged before the High Court was the re-opening notice under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices have been issued, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance on merits thereafter, the same has to be agitated before the Assessing Officer in the re-assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 4 No interference of this Court is called for. The present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, judgments relied upon by the petitioner, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the discussion made above I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition since in my considered view the impugned notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act and the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act is neither without jurisdiction nor the same are contrary to any specific provision of law nor there is any procedural irregularity in the impugned proceeding nor the same are in violation of principle of natural justice. Furthermore, admitted factual position which cannot be ignored is that before passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, as per Section 148A of the Act, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 148A(a) of the Act which the petitioner himself had chosen to not to give any reply/response to the same and thereafter notice to show cause under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued to give reply to the same and in fact, the petitioner has given the reply to the same which was considered in detail and a reasoned and speaking order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on the basis of material facts and evidence appeared from the records which were available to the Assessing Officer. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being W.P.A No. 13960 of 2023 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN +05'30' (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) 5