ORDER :

Heard.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer in exercise of powers under section 148A(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT and also simultaneously issuing notice under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the institution of proceedings under Section 148 preceded by order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148 A(d) of the IT Act are wholly without jurisdiction and authority of law inasmuch as, the sale deed shows only 13 lakhs as the sale consideration and that was duly disclosed income. Therefore, it is contended that it is apparently not a case of any income having escaped assessment.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submit that the issue, which has been raised by the petitioner, is not pertaining to any jurisdiction but essentially a matter of determination at subsequent stages after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act.

5. At the outset, we find that the petitioner has not alleged procedural impropriety, irregularities or violation of statutory provisions in the matter of initiation of proceedings or passing of the order under section 148A(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT . Moreover, there is no allegation that his reply was not considered or opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him.

6. It appears that the department received information that the value of land, which was subject matter of transaction of sale, was far more than what has been disclosed. Therefore, on the face of it, it appears to be a case where the department has collected certain information regarding certain income having escaped assessment. Whether or not, the information is reliable, would be required to be examined at subsequent stages and at this stage, the writ court would not go into the disputed questions of facts pertaining to valuation of the land or the nature of the land.

7. In the case of Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [CWP NO. 10219 OF 2022 DECIDED ON 02.06.2022] the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held:-

"4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. The primary issue that would arises in the present writ petition is :-

"Whether at this stage of notice under Section 148 , writ Court should venture into the merits of the controversy when AO is yet to frame assessment/reassemment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under Section147 of the Act ?"

4.1 The debate is not new. While dealing with the similar situation under the old Act i.e. Indian INCOME TAX ACT , 1922, Division Bench of this Court in 'Lachhman Das Nayar and others v. Hans Raj Puri, Income-Tax Officer, Amritsar and others, 1953 AIR (P&H) 55, held that -

"An examination of the scheme of the Act and the words used in section 34 of the Act and the various cases that I have referred to above show that the legislature has entrusted the determination of facts and of law to the Income-tax Officers. A particular machinery has been set up under the Act "by the use of which alone" total assessable income for the purposes of the Income-tax is to be ascertained and jurisdiction 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."

5. In 'Rasulji Buxji Kathawala v. 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 ca