TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: "a. For issuance of appropriate writ/ direction(s) to prevent the respondents from exceeding its jurisdiction and/or acting contrary to the rule of natural justice, where the defect of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the proceedings and/or there is an abuse of power. b. For issuance of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) quashing the show-cause notice issued by the Respondent No. 2 under the section 148A (b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after called "the Act") dated 23/03/2022 (Annexure - P1) as the notice issued by the Respondent No. 2 is wholly illegal as the same has been issued on a wrong information which does not belong to the assessee and goes to the illegal assumption of jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 2. c. For issuing the appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order under the section 148A(d) of the Act dated 04/04/2022 (Annexure - P2) as the order has been passed in complete contravention of the provisions of section 148A of the Act. d. For issuance of writ of Certiorari or any othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after referred to as "the Act") dated 23.03.2022 was issued by the respondent no. 2 on the grounds of being a non-filer of return for the relevant assessment year 2015-16 and having an investment of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- (Twelve Crore Fifty Lakhs) in the nature of term deposits. Copy of the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act has been brought on record as Annexure 'P/1'. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner 4. Mr. Aman Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, being a senior citizen, was having an income of less than Rs. 5,00,000/- in the relevant assessment year. He was unaware of the notices being issued owing to the lack of knowledge of accessing emails and thus the notice under Section 148A remained non-complied with. Pursuant to the noncompliance, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by respondent no. 2 vide Annexure 'P/2' to the writ petition. It was based on an apparently wrong information supplied by respondent no. 4 holding that an income to the tune of Rs. 12,54,81,130/- has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. 5. It is stated that respondent no. 2 initiated the reassessment proceeding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 because a huge amount of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- will earn a much more amount of interest and it cannot be limited to a meager amount of Rs. 73,652/-. It is, thus, submitted that the action on the part of respondent no. 2 is a result of complete non-application of mind. 10. It is submitted that the total income chargeable to tax escaping the assessment has been established to only Rs. 12,50,000/- and not Rs. 12,50,00,000/-, therefore, the issuance of notice on 04.04.2022 is way beyond the period of three years provided under the statute, thereby making the notice tortious and void ab initio. 11. It is submitted that the time period of issuance of notice beyond three years and within ten years for reopening of assessment, as provided under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, shall apply only when the escapement is of more than Rs. 50,00,000/- which in the present case is conspicuously absent as the total escapement is only of Rs. 17,84,197/- and, thus, the issuance of notice under Section 148 beyond the period of limitation prescribed is in sheer violation of the statutory provision, thus arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel has further submitted that according to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 148. Reliance has been placed on the relevant portion of Section 148A and 148A(d). Submission is that the impugned order dated 04.04.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) is invalid and unsustainable as no prior approval of the specified authority was obtained before passing the order. 15. In course of hearing, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Agarwal vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2026) 487 ITR 541 : 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 4394 wherein this Court has considered identical submissions with regard to validity of a notice under Section 148A of the Act. It is submitted that in the case of Ankit Agarwal (supra), this Court has gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). In the said case it has been held inter alia that the benefit of the new provision shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided Section 148 notice has been issued on or after 01.04.2021. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards paragraph '41' of the judgment wherein this Court held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in faceless manner to the extent provided in Section 148 of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. It is, thus, the stand of the department that the notice had been issued in online manner and digitally signed. Consideration 19. In course of hearing, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the department does not dispute the statements made in the writ application that the issuance of notice dated 23.03.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act of 1961 (Annexure 'P/1') was issued on a wrong information furnished by the Bank (respondent no. 4). The basis for issuance of the notice (Annexure 'P/1') may be found in the information under the head "Annexure" which we reproduce hereunder:- "ANNEXURE 1. The department has in possession of an information that the assessee has time deposit with a banking company amounting to Rs. 12,50,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2014-15. The information provided under information code CIB-403 i.e. Time deposit exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/- with a banking company. The Details in this case provided by the Corporation Bank(TAN-PTNC02442G)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are duly supported by the certificate (Annexure 'P/8'), would show that the very issuance of the notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act of 1961 (Annexure 'P/1') is based on a wrong information. The Bank has confirmed that it was a technical error or system fault. 22. Learned Senior Standing counsel for the department does not dispute the factual position as appearing from the records. If it is so, in our considered opinion, the notice dated 23.03.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16 (Annexure 'P/1') would be hit by the reduced time limit for reopening of assessment. This Court had occasion to consider as to what would be an effective show-cause in terms of Section 148A(b). Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2023) 1 SCC 617 have been relied upon. Paragraphs '39', '40' and '41' of the judgment in case of Ankit Agarwal (supra) rendered by this Court is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- "39. It has been further noticed in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal2 that in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal14, the hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....khs or more in a year, can the assessment be reopened up to ten years. Even this reopening can be done only after the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner, the highest level of the Income-tax Department." Memorandum (page 249 of 430 ITR (St.)): "Income escaping assessment and search assessments Under the Act, the provisions related to income escaping assessment provide that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may assess or reassess or recompute the total income for such year under section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. However, such reopening is subject to the time limits prescribed in section 149 of the Act.... The Bill proposes a completely new procedure for assessment of such cases. It is expected that the new system would result in less litigation and would provide ease of doing business to taxpayers as there is a reduction in the time limit by which a notice for assessment or reassessment or recomputation can be issued. The salient features of the new procedure are as under :... (iii) Section 147 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3D of the Act, the aforesaid time limitation shall not apply to such cases. * It is also proposed that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation for issue of section 148 notice, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee in providing opportunity of being heard or period during which such proceedings before issuance of notice under section 148 are stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded. If after excluding such period, time available to the Assessing Officer for passing order, about fitness of a case for issue of section 148 notice, is less than seven days, the remaining time shall be extended to seven days."' 53.1. As would be evident from the extracts set forth above, both from the Finance Minister's Speech and the Memorandum, the time limit for reopening under the new regime was reduced from six (6) years to three (3) years and only in respect of 'serious tax evasion cases', that too, where evidence of concealment of income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more in a given period was found, the period for reopening the assessment was extended to ten (10) years. In order to ensure that utmost care was taken before invoking the ex....