Cash withdrawals as asset for reassessment: qualifying withdrawals sustain AO jurisdiction; prima facie orders are not roving enquiries.

Cash withdrawals recorded in bank accounts qualify as an asset for triggering reassessment under the Income-tax Act where they meet the statutory threshold; this supports the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under reassessment provisions. A Section 148A(d) order that records a prima facie opinion and simultaneously affords the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence does not constitute a prohibited roving enquiry. Whether the notice was validly issued outside the Faceless Assessment procedure is left open for connected proceedings, with interim protection against giving effect to adverse orders until further adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cash withdrawals qualify as an "asset" within the meaning of Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for initiating reassessment under Section 148; (ii) Whether the Section 148A(d) order evidences a prohibited "roving enquiry"; (iii) Whether the impugned notice was validly issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in light of the Faceless Scheme of Assessment.

Issue (i): Whether cash withdrawals qualify as an "asset" under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of triggering reassessment under Section 148.

Analysis: The Section 148A(b) notice referred to bank account transactions showing aggregate cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,87,95,000/-, which exceeds the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold in Section 149(1)(b). The Explanation to Section 149(1)(b) refers to deposits in bank accounts, supporting inclusion of bank-related transactions within the concept of "asset" as used in that provision.

Conclusion: Cash withdrawals, including the withdrawals shown in the notice, qualify as an "asset" within the meaning of Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 cannot be attacked on the basis that withdrawals are not "asset".

Issue (ii): Whether the Section 148A(d) order demonstrates a prohibited "roving enquiry" by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The Section 148A(d) order records the Assessing Officer's prima facie opinion regarding escaped income and contemporaneously affords the petitioner an opportunity to produce supporting documentary evidence. The sequence and content of the order indicate formation of a prima facie opinion rather than an unfocused or exploratory investigation.

Conclusion: The challenge that the order constitutes a "roving enquiry" is without merit; the Section 148A(d) order validly records a prima facie opinion and grants an opportunity to the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned notice was validly issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of under the procedure mandated by the Faceless Scheme of Assessment.

Analysis: The question concerning adherence to the Faceless Scheme and whether the jurisdictional Assessing Officer validly issued the notice raises a distinct procedural issue now being considered in connected proceedings (W.P.(C) 262/2023 and others). The Court directed the respondents to file a reply and permitted the petitioner a rejoinder; interim protection was granted against giving effect to any adverse order till the next date while permitting respondents to proceed with reassessment steps.

Conclusion: The validity of issuance of the notice by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in light of the Faceless Scheme is kept open for further adjudication; interlocutory relief is granted by restraining the operation of any adverse order until the next date, while permitting reassessment proceedings to continue.

Final Conclusion: The Court upholds the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to initiate reassessment on the grounds challenged under Issues (i) and (ii), while reserving and directing further adjudication on the procedural question raised by Issue (iii); interim protection is afforded to the petitioner against implementation of any adverse orders until the matter is further heard.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of initiating reassessment under Section 148, bank account cash withdrawals exceeding the statutory threshold qualify as an "asset" under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a Section 148A(d) order that records a prima facie opinion and affords an opportunity to the assessee does not amount to a prohibited roving enquiry.

---