In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in cases where full-fledged investigation is required. The Single bench clarified that writ petition shall be filed in cases where impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or there is violation of any principle of natural justice or there is any procedural irregularity or the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of any statutory provision of the statute.
The petitioner, M/s Accord Capital Markets Private Limited has challenged the an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2015-16 mainly on the two grounds that the impugned order has been passed without approval from the specified Authority under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before passing the aforesaid impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and secondly, on the ground that its objections/replies against the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act has not been properly considered and dealt with and the order has been passed in a mechanical manner.
Justice Md. Nizamuddin held that the Assessing Officer has found that the Assessee/petitioner failed to explain the transaction regarding derivative loss and there is serious allegation against the petitioner that Assessee/petitioner has made claim of fictitious loss and that the same is not genuine.
“These facts are to be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer in course of assessment proceedings after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act subsequent to the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. This court in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not interfere in these types of cases where full-fledged investigations are required on alleged fictitious transaction/claim and all these are matters of evidence which cannot be appreciated by the writ court. This is not a case which falls under the category where impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or there is violation of any principle of natural justice or there is any procedural irregularity or the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of any statutory provision of the statute,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
