Petition challenging Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 dismissed for adequate prima facie material

The HC dismissed the petition challenging proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the AO did not rely on survey information u/s 133A but selected the case under risk management strategy. Regarding share issuance, while the petitioner used accountant valuation instead of merchant banker valuation required post-24.05.2018 u/s 56(2)(viib), the court held this was a matter for assessment proceedings inquiry. The court found no procedural error in the impugned order, adequate opportunity was given, and prima facie material existed to proceed against the petitioner, leaving substantive issues for assessment proceedings.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be validly initiated where the assessing officer's notice and order refer to information derived from a survey conducted under Section 133A prior to 1 April 2021, in light of Explanation-2(ii) to Section 148.

2. Whether selection of the assessment for reopening under Explanation-1(i) to Section 148 based on a Board-formulated risk management strategy (flagging as "High Risk CRIU/VRU" in the Insight Portal) constitutes valid "information" permitting issuance of notice under Section 148, notwithstanding reference to an earlier survey.

3. Whether issuance of unquoted shares in two tranches (before and after 24.05.2018) and reliance on a valuation report by a chartered accountant (rather than a merchant banker for shares issued after 24.05.2018) renders the reopening order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 illegitimate at the threshold.

4. Whether the order under Section 148A(d) suffers from procedural infirmity or denial of opportunity to be heard such as to warrant interference under Article 226.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Legality of reopening where referenced survey pre-dates 1 April 2021 (Explanation-2(ii) to Section 148)

Legal framework: Explanation-2(ii) to Section 148 provides that information from a survey conducted under Section 133A (other than sub-section (2A)) on or after 1 April 2021 may be taken into consideration for initiating reassessment proceedings.

Precedent Treatment: No prior case law or precedent was invoked or considered in the judgment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the notice dated 03.03.2023 and the order dated 31.03.2023 and observed that both documents expressly stated the case was flagged as "CRIU/VRU High Risk" in the Insight Portal pursuant to the Board's risk management strategy. On that basis, the Court found that the assessing officer did not rely on the survey of 04.03.2020 as the basis for initiating proceedings; rather, the triggering information was the risk-management selection flagged in Insight.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's finding that Explanation-2(ii) does not vitiate the reopening where the assessing officer's stated basis is risk-management selection (Explanation-1(i)) and not the pre-1 April 2021 survey.

Conclusions: Proceedings under Section 148 were not invalid merely because a prior survey existed in the file when the assessing officer's stated basis for reopening was information arising from the Board-formulated risk management strategy; therefore, Explanation-2(ii) did not render the order void on the record before the Court.

Issue 2 - Validity of "information" under Explanation-1(i) via Board risk-management selection (Insight Portal flagging)

Legal framework: Explanation-1(i) to Section 148 includes "any information in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time" as a permissible basis for reopening.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited; the Court applied statutory text to facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the assessing officer's averment, supported by the notice and order, that the case was selected by the Department's Insight Portal as "High Risk CRIU/VRU" under the Board's risk-management strategy formulated on 20.02.2023. The Court treated such selection as falling within Explanation-1(i)'s scope of "information" permitting initiation of proceedings under Section 148.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Board-formulated risk-management flagging recorded in the department's Insight Portal can constitute "information" under Explanation-1(i) for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the assessing officer's reliance on the risk-management selection as a valid statutory basis for issuing notice under Section 148; challenge premised on earlier survey information therefore failed on the record.

Issue 3 - Sufficiency of valuation where unquoted shares issued partly before and partly after 24.05.2018 (Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA)

Legal framework: Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value determination by a merchant banker for issuance of unquoted shares from 24.05.2018 onwards; earlier rules permitted valuation by a chartered accountant.

Precedent Treatment: No precedent was relied upon; the Court examined statutory transition and timing of issuances.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that share allotments occurred in two tranches, with a portion of shares issued after 24.05.2018. Although the Share Subscription Agreement dated 22.02.2018 contained a CA valuation as of 15.02.2018, the Court observed that for shares issued after 24.05.2018, statutory requirements prescribe a merchant banker valuation. The Court held that whether the accountant's earlier valuation suffices for tranches issued post-24.05.2018 is a matter for factual inquiry by the assessing officer in assessment/reassessment proceedings rather than a ground for quashing reopening at the threshold.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-compliance with merchant banker valuation requirement for post-24.05.2018 issuances is a substantive issue to be examined in assessment proceedings and does not, by itself on the materials before the Court, invalidate the reopening order.

Conclusions: The question of valuation compliance is remitted for inquiry in assessment/reassessment; the Court declined to quash the reopening order on this basis at the writ stage.

Issue 4 - Procedural regularity of Section 148A(d) order and adequacy of opportunity to be heard (scope for Article 226 intervention)

Legal framework: Order under Section 148A(d) must comply with procedural safeguards, including giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard before issuance of notice under Section 148; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and limited where no procedural infirmity is shown.

Precedent Treatment: No authorities were cited; the Court applied established principles of judicial restraint in writ control over income-tax proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the chronology: notice under Section 148A(b) dated 03.03.2023, petitioner's replies (12.03.2023 and 31.03.2023), and the order dated 31.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) followed by notice under Section 148. The Court found that the order was passed after hearing and that no procedural error was demonstrated that would justify interference under Article 226. The Court emphasized that once procedural regularity and hearing are apparent, it is appropriate to refrain from adjudicating disputed factual matters at the writ stage and allow those to be addressed in assessment proceedings.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of procedural infirmity and presence of opportunity to be heard precluded interference by the Court under Article 226 at the stage of challenge to the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice.

Conclusions: The Court refused to interfere with the reopening on procedural grounds and left factual and substantive disputes (including valuation and alleged forged documentation) to assessment/reassessment proceedings; writ petition and interim stay were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Cross-references and final operative position

1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: the presence of an earlier survey does not invalidate reopening where the assessing officer's stated statutory basis is risk-management "information" under Explanation-1(i); see analysis under Issues 1 and 2.

2. Issue 3 (valuation compliance) is substantive and factual; the Court treated it as material for assessment proceedings rather than a threshold jurisdictional defect; see analysis under Issue 4 regarding scope of Article 226 intervention.

3. Overall conclusion: On the materials before the Court, prima facie material existed to proceed; the order under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notice under Section 148 were not set aside and the matters raised by the assessee are directed to be agitated and adjudicated in the assessment/reassessment process.

---