Notice under s.148 and order under s.148A(d) quashed as escaped income below s.149(1)(b) threshold and time-barred

The HC quashed the notice issued under s.148 and the order under s.148A(d), holding the reopening unlawful. The petitioner had produced a registered sale deed showing the immovable property was purchased by his daughter (a separate assessee), so the Rs.40,00,000 consideration was excluded. After exclusion, alleged escaped income totaled Rs.36,91,500, below the Rs.50,00,000 threshold in s.149(1)(b), and the s.148 notice dated 23.03.2022 exceeded the three-year limitation for AY 2015-16. The HC found the AO failed to consider material and interfered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an individual assessee, challenged an order dated 31.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding alleged income escaping assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. The petitioner argued that he was not the purchaser of a property mentioned in the notice, providing a registered sale deed showing his daughter as the purchaser and him as the special power of attorney holder. The Assessing Officer failed to consider this evidence.
3. The petitioner also denied depositing a specific amount in his bank account, requesting the source of information for the notice issued. Even after excluding the disputed amounts, the remaining income was below the threshold for reopening assessment under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
4. The High Court found that the Assessing Officer did not apply a judicious mind by ignoring crucial evidence, leading to a lack of justification for reopening the assessment. The notice issued exceeded the permissible period under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
5. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice issued under Section 148, relieving the petitioner from further contesting the proceedings under Section 148.

This detailed analysis showcases how the High Court considered the evidence, legal provisions, and the Assessing Officer's actions to arrive at the decision to quash the order and notice in favor of the petitioner.

---