Tax Notice Invalidated for Vague Info; Case Sent Back for Fresh Notice u/s 148A(b.

The court set aside the notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148 due to non-compliance with Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. It found the information provided was vague and did not meet statutory requirements. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) with clear information. The application was allowed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Compliance with Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Prematurity of the writ petition.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Compliance with Section 148A of the Income Tax Act:
The court examined whether the Assessing Officer (AO) complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 148A before issuing a notice under Section 148. The AO is required to conduct an inquiry, provide an opportunity of being heard, consider the reply of the assessee, and decide on issuing a notice based on the material available. The court found that the information provided to the petitioner was vague and did not meet the statutory requirement of being definite and tangible. The AO failed to disclose the nature of the information received, which was necessary for due compliance with Section 148A(b).

2. Validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 148A. The court noted that the AO's decision to issue a notice for reassessment attains finality after passing an order under Section 148A(d), and this aspect cannot be revisited while exercising jurisdiction under Section 147. The court held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without adhering to the mandatory requirements of Section 148A, rendering it invalid.

3. Prematurity of the Writ Petition:
The Income Tax Department argued that the writ petition was premature, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which emphasized that a writ petition should not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy is available. However, the court distinguished this case by highlighting the amendments in the Income Tax Act, which now obligate the AO to strictly adhere to the requirements under Section 148A. The court found that the illegality in issuing the notice was manifest and justified intervention to correct the procedural lapse.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the notice dated 14.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148. The matter was remitted back to the AO to consider issuing a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) with clear information as stipulated by law. The application was allowed with no order as to costs.

---