Reopening assessment procedure: court refused interference and directed the assessee to place full submissions before the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

Challenge to notices for reopening assessment (s.148A(b), order under s.148A(d) and s.148) for AY 2020-21 was declined judicially in favour of administrative reconsideration: the HC held that factual incompleteness and pending queries under s.142(1) warranted the assessee appearing before the Assessing Officer, placing all material and submissions, and permitting the AO to reconsider and proceed in accordance with law; the court invoked the supervisory principle that matters requiring primary adjudication should be decided by the authority first and disposed the petition directing AO consideration rather than quashing the notices.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition challenging the notices issued under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment for AY 2020-21 should be allowed and the impugned notices/orders quashed.

Analysis: The petition challenges the notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 12.04.2024 under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148. The Court examined the procedural posture including the petitioner's requests for time to reply, the filing of a delayed reply, the issuance of a notice under Section 142(1) following the order under Section 148A(d), and the lapse of more than one and a half years between the order and the petition. The Court considered the factual record showing lack of complete information from the petitioner to reconcile the figures and noted that the Assessing Officer had issued further queries under Section 142(1). Having regard to the facts and the need for the petitioner to make full factual and legal submissions before the Assessing Officer, the Court found it appropriate that the petitioner appear before the Assessing Officer and place all material and submissions for consideration rather than exercise judicial interference at this stage. The Court directed that on such appearance the Assessing Officer shall consider the submissions and proceed in accordance with law, referencing the supervisory principle in Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598 as guiding the course of action where matters require adjudication by the authority in the first instance.

Conclusion: The petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer, place all submissions and material, and permit the Assessing Officer to consider and proceed in accordance with law; petition not allowed in favour of the petitioner and thus decided against the assessee.

---