Reopening of assessment requires prior inquiry and supplied materials; procedural compliance upheld, petition dismissed at interlocutory stage.

Reopening of assessment under Section 148 was contested for alleged procedural lapse; the court analysed the statutory inquiry and opportunity requirement under Section 148A and the limitation framework for reopening, focusing on supply of materials via the Insight Portal and the assessee's replies. The record showed materials had been furnished, the assessing officer passed a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) and issued notice under Section 148. Applying the prima facie material standard and rejecting premature writ interference where procedure is followed, the petition was dismissed and the reopening order and notice were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment of the petitioner for Assessment Year 2016-2017.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory scheme introduced by Section 148A (w.e.f. 01.04.2021) requiring an inquiry and opportunity to the assessee before issuance of notice under Section 148, and the limitation framework under Section 149 for reopening assessments beyond three years. The court considered whether the procedural requirements were complied with, including supply of materials relied upon via the Insight Portal as directed earlier by this Court and the applicability of the Supreme Court's guidance in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal regarding supply of information and fresh orders under Section 148A(d). The record showed that the Revenue supplied the Insight Portal information to the petitioner pursuant to the prior order, the petitioner filed replies, and the assessing authority passed an order under Section 148A(d) and issued notice under Section 148. The Court noted opposing precedents and holdings that writ interference is inappropriate at a premature stage where statutory procedure is followed and there is prima facie material (including alleged large-value bogus purchases) justifying reopening. On the facts, the Court found no failure of procedural compliance warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petition is dismissed; there is no interference with the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148. The decision is in favour of the Revenue/respondents.

---