Jurisdiction to issue reassessment notice upheld where prima facie transactional material meets asset-threshold; review dismissed.

Challenge to the assessing officer's jurisdiction to issue a notice under the reassessment provision was rejected where the Section 148A(b) record contained specific transactional material and a recorded prima facie opinion; the court upheld prior dismissal. The court found bank transaction data demonstrating withdrawals that met the statutory asset-threshold for reassessment, so assumption of jurisdiction on that ground stood. The contention of a proposed roving enquiry failed because a prima facie basis was recorded and the assessee was given an opportunity to produce evidence. The review petition was dismissed, leaving the original adjudication intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether there was material to indicate that income chargeable to tax represented by assets exceeded Rs.50 lakhs within the meaning of Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Whether the Assessing Officer was proposing to undertake a roving enquiry in violation of Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The question was considered in light of the faceless assessment scheme and existing precedent relied upon by the parties. The Court examined the notice dated 16.07.2024 and the basis recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(b) and compared it with the controlling decision identified in the earlier order. The Court also reviewed the factual matrix and the recorded prima facie opinion forming the basis for issuance of the notice.

Conclusion: The Court found no ground to review the prior dismissal and upheld the conclusion that the challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether there was material to indicate that income chargeable to tax represented by assets exceeded Rs.50 lakhs under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court considered the material set out in the Section 148A(b) notice, including bank transaction data showing withdrawals and deposits from the petitioner's account. The figures recorded in the notice were compared with the threshold contained in Section 149(1)(b) and the Explanation thereto, which includes deposits in bank accounts within the definition of asset.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the material demonstrated withdrawals aggregating Rs.1,87,95,000/-, which satisfied the threshold in Section 149(1)(b); accordingly the assumption of jurisdiction on this ground could not be assailed.

Issue (iii): Whether the Assessing Officer was proposing to undertake a roving enquiry contrary to Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court reviewed the Section 148A(d) order and the sequence by which the Assessing Officer recorded a prima facie opinion and then afforded the petitioner an opportunity to produce supporting documents. The content of the order was assessed to determine whether it amounted to an unstructured or exploratory investigation without a recorded basis.

Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the contention of a proposed roving enquiry, observing that a prima facie opinion was recorded and an opportunity to produce evidence was provided; the challenge on this ground was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review petition sought reconsideration of the dismissal dated 07.05.2025 and re litigation of the above issues; having found no valid basis to disturb the earlier decision, the Court dismissed the review petition, thereby leaving the original adjudication intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Section 148A(b) notice records specific transactional material (including bank deposits/withdrawals) meeting the threshold in Section 149(1)(b) and a prima facie opinion is recorded before offering the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence, the assumption of jurisdiction and the issuance of the notice cannot be successfully impugned as a roving enquiry.

---