High Court quashes notice under Sec 148A(b), order under Sec 148A(d), and subsequent notice under Sec 148

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Act, and the subsequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

Validity of Notice under Section 148A(b):
The petitioner, an individual, received a notice under Section 148A(b) stating that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2016-17 had escaped assessment. The notice required the petitioner to show cause within a specified time frame, but the petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it provided only five days for a response, contrary to the minimum requirement of seven days as per the Act. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit from his brother confirming a gift beyond the relevant assessment year. The court found that the notice's failure to comply with the mandatory seven-day requirement rendered it invalid, and the objections raised by the petitioner were not addressed by the respondent.

Validity of Order under Section 148-A(d):
The respondent passed an order under Section 148A(d) stating that income had escaped assessment, citing a credit entry in the brother's bank statement. However, the approval attached to the order belonged to a different assessee, indicating a lack of application of mind by the respondent. Additionally, the order did not specify the amount of income/assets that had escaped assessment, as required by guidelines. The court held that these deficiencies warranted quashing and setting aside of the impugned order.

Incorrect Statements and Lack of Substantiation:
Several factual inaccuracies were found in the order, including a statement that the brother's affidavit was not notarized, which was incorrect. Moreover, the order questioned the creditworthiness of the brother without giving the petitioner an opportunity to provide evidence in this regard. The court concluded that the order should be quashed and set aside on these grounds as well.

Decision:
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---