Court sets aside Order under Section 148A of Income Tax Act due to discrepancies. Fresh notice required for additional bank accounts.

The Court set aside the Order challenged under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act due to discrepancies and verification lapses. It directed the issuance of a fresh notice with specific information on additional bank accounts within a specified timeframe. The Respondent was instructed to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to respond and proceed lawfully. The Writ Petition was disposed of without costs, and pending applications were closed.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to the Order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of Income Tax Act, 1961 based on various procedural and substantive grounds.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 149 of the Act
- The Petitioner argues that the Assessing Officer lacked the necessary documents to establish the income chargeable to tax or the likelihood of it exceeding Rs.50,00,000.
- The Counsel emphasizes the requirement of proper verification under Section 148A(b) and (d) through sources like CIB and AIR, highlighting the importance of not treating verification as a mere formality.
- The Petitioner raised objections under Section 148A(c), asserting the duty of the Respondent to verify and consider the objections objectively, which the Authority allegedly failed to do.

Issue 2: Merits of the Case
- The Petitioner contests the information received by the Department, alleging duplication of deposits under different heads, leading to an inflated amount.
- Lack of specific details in the notice regarding the bank branch and account number where the alleged deposits were made is highlighted by the Petitioner.
- The Counsel argues that the Order is illegal and that the Petitioner's explanation and evidence were not adequately considered before issuing the impugned order.

Issue 3: Respondent's Defense
- The Respondent contends that since the assessment is pending, the Petitioner will have further opportunities to present their case, justifying the continuation of proceedings.
- Emphasis is placed on the requirement of prima facie material for reopening a case, rather than the sufficiency or correctness of the material at the initial stage.

Judgment
- The Court examines the notice issued under Clause (d) of Section 148A, noting discrepancies in the information provided and the Petitioner's response.
- Considering the lack of specific details and verification lapses, the Court sets aside the Order and remands the matter to the first Respondent for issuing a fresh notice with detailed information on any additional bank account within a specified timeframe.
- The Court directs the Respondent to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner to respond and proceed in accordance with the law.
- The Writ Petition is disposed of with no costs, and pending interlocutory applications are closed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural and substantive aspects considered by the Court in addressing the challenges raised by the Petitioner against the Order under Clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---