Dismissed petition challenging tax order as premature; petitioner to contest after receiving notice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act as premature. The Court held that the petitioner would have the opportunity to contest the matter fully after receiving a notice under Section 148 of the Act, emphasizing that final proceedings under Section 148 would allow for comprehensive contestation of the issues raised.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 04.05.2022.
3. Objection to reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act.
4. Prematurity of the writ petition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer 5(1), Indore under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was issued in consequence of the order dated 04.05.2022 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which found the petitioner's case suitable for a notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 04.05.2022
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India v/s Ashish Agrawal, held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Act before 01.04.2021 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as per the Finance Act, 2021. The Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) issued instructions for the implementation of this judgment. In compliance with this, the Income Tax Department issued a fresh notice under the newly inserted Section 148 of the Act to the petitioner, leading to the present challenge.

Issue 3: Objection to reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act
The petitioner contended that the assessment should not be reopened under Section 148 of the Act due to the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner argued that a transaction involving share allotment was wrongly treated as occurring in the relevant assessment year, whereas it actually took place in a prior year, which had become time-barred. The petitioner also highlighted similar issues pending before various High Courts.

Issue 4: Prematurity of the writ petition
The Income Tax Department argued that the order under Section 148A (d) was preliminary and not final adjudication. The Department contended that the petitioner would have the opportunity to contest the matter fully after receiving a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Department asserted that the writ petition was premature and should be dismissed, which the Court upheld.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature, emphasizing that the final proceedings under Section 148 of the Act would provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the matter comprehensively.

---