TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus praying for setting aside a notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), order dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the Act, notice dated 13.06.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Act and notice dated 29.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Act issued by the respondent-Revenue for the Assessment Year (in short 'A.Y.') 2021-22. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed Return of Income on 14.03.2022 declaring an income of Rs. 8,53,950/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. On 29.03.2025, the respondent issued a notice under Section 148A(1) for the A.Y. 2021-22 to the petitioner stating that income char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk account presumed by the respondent to be associated with the petitioner are neither linked nor in any manner associated with the petitioner and that dummy or shell entities were not reflected in any of the petitioner's GST Returns and do not match with the GST Portal data pertaining to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.06.2025, the respondent again issued a notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2021-22 stating that his income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment without first withdrawing the notice dated 23.03.2025 and that respondent wrongly presumed that various bank accounts were operated by the petitioner. In response to this notice, the petitioner again sent a reply dated 16.06.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner merely because the aforesaid bank accounts were active during relevant period and email ID and address of the petitioner is also used in the said bank accounts. It is submitted that the respondent wrongly believed that the petitioner had evaded tax by manipulating invoice values. 6. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent failed to consider reply dated 21.06.2025 and appreciate the facts that any person can use petitioner's email ID or address in any bank account without the consent or knowledge of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is direct evidence that the bank account is in name of the petitioner and the bank account is being operated by or associated with the petitioner. Therefore, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order under Section 148 (A) (3) of the Act is very clear. This order deals with the reply of the petitioner in detail. It also deals fully the facts that establish connection between the assessee i.e. the petitioner and the disputed entities. The GST data analysis and discrepancies have also been discussed as suggesting a pattern where invoice values were manipulated to facilitate tax evasion while maintaining apparent compliance with GST regulations. The petitioner's contention that two different sets of 'reasons to believe' were furnished was also held to be both factually incorrect and legally misconceived. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the original 'reasons to believe' were passed on the intelligence received from DD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In view of this contradiction, learned Counsel for Revenue himself stated that they had no objection if the impugned order and notice under section 148 of the Act are set aside and matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. However, these facts are not appearing in the present case. The facts have been clearly stated in the notice and there is no ambiguity causing any prejudice to the petitioner to put forward his defense. In our opinion it is not a case of change of opinion. Further, nothing has been shown by the petitioner to show that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148(1) of the Act or the notice suffers from any inherent defect. 11. So far as the contention of le....