M/s Shanti G D Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Raipur (C.G.) and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

WPT/121/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Shanti G D Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd., which challenged a notice and an order issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The petitioner argued that the notice and order were issued without proper jurisdiction and were barred by time. The respondents, including various commissioners of income tax, defended the actions taken under the Act, asserting that there was credible information suggesting that income had escaped assessment. The court examined the procedural validity of the notice and order, the compliance with statutory time limits, and the substantive merits of the allegations against the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798156 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujrat v. A. Raman & Company, Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam and Another v. Uttareswari Rice Mills, Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta, Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta and others v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, The Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1 Ward \\u2018A\\u2019 Rajkot, Gujarat, GKN driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others, Commissioner of Income Tax, delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, Income Tax Officer v. Techspan India Private Ltd. and another, Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors, Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer and Anr, Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and others, Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax officer, Sidhbali Kripa Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer, Mohd. Sajid Bains v. Income tax officer, Sanjay Ratra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Barbrik Projects Ltd. v. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AMIT CHOUDHARY; AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: NEELABH DUBEY; SMITI SHARMA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2017-18; Escaped assessment; Income Tax; Notice under section 148; Order under section 148A(d)
• Section: 148; 149; 148A(b); 148A(d); 148A(a)

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:15818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on :21-08-2024 Order passed on : 03-04-2025 WPT No. 121 of 2024 1 - M/s Shanti G D Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. a company duly incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 504, 4th Floor Rajiv Gandhi Complex, Balashra, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh Through its authorized Signatory Anup Agrawal, S/o Shri Late Ghanshyam Das Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident of House No. B-3, Ravi Nagar, Behind Shyam Plaza, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax, Circle - 1(1), Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Neelabh Dubey and Ms. Smiti Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Choudhary and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocates. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV Order 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 05.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Income Tax Act’) issued by respondent Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 1/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a private limited company having its PAN [Permanent Account Number] being AACCG1100C. It is regularly assessed under the Income Tax Act. For the assessment year 2017-18, it filed its return of income on 29.09.2017, where its total income was declared as NIL. On 27.02.2024, the Petitioner received the first notice under section 148A(b) of the Act from the office of the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Raipur. This notice stated that there was information that suggests that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2017-18 has escaped assessment. It also stated that the details of the information/enquiry conducted on which reliance was placed, along with supporting documents were enclosed with said notice. 3. Mr. Neelabh Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order passed by respondent No.1 under Section 148A (d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, there is no provision for appeal or revision and duty is cast upon the authority passing the order to consider all the relevant and defence taken by the petitioner. He would submit that first notice under section 148A(b) of the Act from the office of the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Raipur, alleged that the Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 55,17,977/- from a shell company namely Jajodia Finance Limited. It also alleged that there were financial transactions between the Petitioner and M/s Bhumi Mitra Agro for 3 Rs. 50,00,000/-. This notice also stated that on the basis of search conducted on M/s Vyapak Enterprises on 06.11.2020, it was seen that there was loan advanced by M/s Bhumi Mitra Agro to M/s Vyapak Enterprises while loans advanced were not proportionate to the income of M/s Bhumi Mitra Agro. The Petitioner replied to the above notice with all details regarding these transactions. In its reply, the Petitioner also sought for a copy of the approval taken as per provisions of S. 148A(a). Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of complying with the request of the Petitioner, a completely new and different notice under S.148A(b) was issued to the Petitioner on 18.03.2024. This new notice alleged that the Petitioner had received accommodation entries in the form of fictitious share capital amounting to Rs. 5,00,67,518/- from Kolkata-based shell companies managed by Shri Suresh Agrawal, entry operator and key person of RKTC Group. The Petitioner filed its response on 03.04.2024. He denied receiving any such amount and provided all the details of his return and books of account which showed that no such amount was received by it. It further asked the office of ACIT to provide any information on the basis of which this allegation was made against the Petitioner. Further, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 has served the petitioner with a copy of the order under S.148A(d) along with the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (hereinafter referred 4 to as CCIT) dated 05.04.2024, under S. 151 and a notice issued under S. 148 of the Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under S.148 of the Act is bad in law, without jurisdiction and authority of law because the same is barred by time. As per the first proviso of S. 149, the last day for issuing notice under S. 148 was 31.03.2024 but the notice has been issued on 05.04.2024. Further it has been alleged that the section 148A (a) as well as for S. 148A(d) makes it mandatory to seek prior sanction from specified authority u/s. 151. No sanction was provided to the Petitioner for any enquiry made u/s. 148A(a) of the Act. The sanction provided for order u/s. 148A(d) has been made without application of mind as there are many glaring differences and errors in the sanction and the order. The order is without any application of mind as the AO failed to consider the response of the Petitioner which clearly shows that the purchase of rice husk was not bogus, the loan obtained from Jajodia, a genuine concern, was properly obtained and repaid in 2020-21 and did not receive any money from Suresh Agrawal or his shell companies. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer AIR 1961 SC 372, Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujrat v. A. Raman & Company Civil Appeal No. 768 of 1996, Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam and Another v. Uttareswari Rice Mills 1972 sales Tax Cases (SC) 567, Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate 5 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta and other 1971 ITR 147 (SC), Income Tax Officer, I Ward, Distt. VI Calcutta and others v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 ITR437 (SC), The Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1 Ward ‘A’ Rajkot, Gujarat 1977(1) SCC 408, GKN driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72, Commissioner of Income Tax, delhi vs. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 2 SCC 723, Income Tax Officer v. Techspan India Private Ltd. and another (2018) 404 ITR 10 (SC), Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors (2017) 390 ITR 10 (SC), Red Chilli International Sales v. Income Tax Officer and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16, Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2021) 6 SCC 771, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1, Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others (2021) SCC Online SC 801. 5. Per contra, Mr. Amit Choudhary and Mr. Ajay Kumrani learned counsel for respondents, would submit that the object of issuing notice under section 148A of the Act is limited to the ascertainment of information which suggests that income has escaped assessment and issues such as sufficiency or otherwise of material justifying the reopening of assessment or adjudication on the correctness of information are ordinarily not warranted at this stage, in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The limited enquiry contemplated at this stage is to ascertain the 6 existence of information that suggests that income has escaped assessment. It is submitted that in the facts of this case, such information does exist on record. It is also argued that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all factual issues/objections at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, and as no prejudice otherwise is caused to him, this Court would not be justified in embarking upon the correctness or otherwise of the information available with the Assessing Officer while taking the decision under section 148A(d) of the Act. It is further argued that the provision of Sub-Section(d) Section 148(A) of the Act gives one month’s time from the end of the month in which reply has been received from the assessee or issuance of notice u/s 148/(A)(b), to the AO for passing the order under this section. The assessee made compliance on 03/04/2024. As per the above provisions, the AO had time up to 31/05/2024 (One month from the end of the month in which the reply was received). Thus, it is clear that the order u/s 148(A)(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 05/04/2024 is well within the time frame of the aforesaid proviso to Sec.149(1) of the Act and hence, they stand valid. Counsel for the respondents further argued that the competent authorities had gone through the proposal and its relevant documents and only after satisfying with the facts, they give the approval. He has objected the contention of the petitioner and has submitted that the AO had applied his mind as all the documents, data, facts, replies etc. were duly considered before passing the order u/s 148(A)(d) of the Act. The order U/s 148A(d) is a system 7 generated and it is generated only after the approval is granted U/s 151 of the Act. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts in the matters of Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (2022) 143 taxmann.com 38 SC & (2022) 143 taxman.com 37 (Punjab and Haryana), Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 151 taxmann.com 376 (Allahabad), Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 154 taxmann.com 289 (Madhya Pradesh), Kailash Kedia v. Income Tax officer, (2023) 147 taxman.com 126 (Orissa), Sidhbali Kripa Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer (2023) 156 taxmann.com 187 (Allahabad), Mohd. Sajid Bains v. Income tax officer (2024) 159 taxmann.com 599 (Rajasthan), Sanjay Ratra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2025) 170 taxmann.com 243 (Bombay) and Barbrik Projects Ltd. v. Union of India and others Writ Appeal No. 473/2022 decided on 15.12.2022. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents including the notice and order annexed with the petition. 7. From the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this court has to examine whether the writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A (d) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 is maintainable or not. 8 8. For better understanding of the lis between the parties, it is expedient for this court to extract the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are applicable to the facts of the case. Section 148-A of the Act, 1961 has been made effective from 1-4-2021. Section 148A provides conducting the inquiry, providing an opportunity before the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. Section 148-A and 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read as under- “148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, — Advertisement (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a ft case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within 9 one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where— (a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April 2021; or Advertisement (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee; or (d) the Assessing Officer has received any information under the scheme notified under section 135A pertaining to income chargeable to tax escaping assessment for any assessment year in the case of the assessee. 149.Time Limit for notice – (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); 10 (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of— (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transaction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: 11 Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this subsection shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation: For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub- section, “asset” shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. Section (2): The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151”. 9. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1961 it is quite vivid that the object of issuing notice under Section 148 A of the Act is limited to the ascertainment of information that suggests that income has escaped assessment and issues such as sufficiency or otherwise of material justifying the reopening of assessment or adjudication on the correctness of information are ordinarily not warranted at this stage, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 10. The limited enquiry contemplated at this stage is to ascertain the existence of information which suggests that income has escaped assessment. It is submitted that the petitioner would be 12 at liberty to raise all factual issues/objections at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, and as no prejudice otherwise is caused to him, this Court would not be justified in embarking upon the correctness or otherwise of the information available with the Assessing Officer while taking the decision under Section 148A (d) of the Act. 11. The order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 148A(d) regarding the existence of information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment would otherwise remain subject to a reassessment order passed under section 148. Thus, any observations of the assessing authority while passing the order under section 148A(d) with regard to the merits of the assessment of income would remain subject to the order to be ultimately passed in reassessment proceedings under section 148 and would not be to the prejudice of rights and contentions of the assessee under section 148 as well as departmental remedies in respect thereof. 12. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta the only ground for reopening was that the company had failed to disclose the true intent behind the sale of shares; therefore, in the said factual background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of true intentions behind the sale of shares cannot be said to be an omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the material fact, however, in the case at hand, the impugned notice has been issued on the basis of information that the assessee company 13 has bogus credits and bogus purchase of Rice Husk from M/s Bhoomi Mitra Agro total amounting to Rs. 6,05,86,145 during F.Y. 2016-17 wherein it failed to explain the genuineness of the said transaction and the Assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 5,00,67,518/- from Kolkata bases shell companies. Thus, in my considered opinion the decision rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on the basis of background facts being different in the matter. 13. As regards the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Red Chilli International Sales (supra), it is seen that the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana had dismissed a similar petition u/A. 226/227 of the Constitution filed by petitioner/assessee therein by refusing to interfere in the order passed u/S 148A(d) on the ground that since proceedings are yet to be concluded, interference ought to be avoided at a premature stage, especially in the absence of any jurisdictional error and in the face of alternative statutory remedy of rectification of error. Pertinently, the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Red Chilli International Sales (supra) was assailed before the Apex Court which passed the following order : \"1. Delay condoned. 2. We with the petitioner that the impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy does not take into consideration several judgments of this Court, on the jurisdiction of the High Court, as writ petitions have been entertained to be examined whether the jurisdiction preconditions for issue of notice under 14 section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is satisfied. The provisions of reopening under the Income-tax Act, 1961, have undergone an amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and consequently, the matter would require a deeper and in-depth consideration keeping in view the earlier case law. Accordingly, we set aside the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment observing that the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy, clarify that this issue would be examined in depth by the High Court if and when it arises for consideration. We do deem it open to examine this issue in the present case after having examined the notice under section 148A (b) including the annexure thereto, the reply filed by the petitioner and the order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition is disposed of. We clarify that the dismissal of the special leave petition would not be construed as a findings or observations on the merits on case. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.\" 14. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Red Chilli International Sales (supra) is concerned, the High Court was directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice under section 148A(b) as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 as the High Court had refused to examine the issue in view of the alternative remedy. This direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is on the facts of the case as the issues raised by the petitioner before the High Court were not examined. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not endorse the view that a writ petition itself would not be 15 maintainable against the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961 and consequently directed the High Court to examine the merits of order. 15. In Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 143 taxmann.com 37 (Punj. & Har.) wherein the question was arisen that:- \"Whether at this stage of notice under section 148, writ Court should venture into the merits of the controversy when AO is yet to frame assessment/reassessment in discharge of statutory duty casted upon him under section 147 of the Act?\" In para 8 & 9 of the judgment, it has held that:- 8. Thus, the consistent view is that where the proceedings have not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writ Court should not interfere at such a pre-mature stage. Moreover it is not a case where from bare reading of notice it can be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched upon the jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order under section 148A(d) is being challenged on the factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vested has been wrongly exercised. By now it is well settled that there is vexed distinction between jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within jurisdiction. For rectification of errors statutory remedy has been provided. 9. In the light of aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. 16 Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 143 taxmann.com 38 (SC), the SLP is dismissed against the order passed by the High Court that where the reopening proceeding was at its intermediate stage and not concluded by statutory authority, there was no reason to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. 16. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amrit Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 289 (Madhya Pradesh) has held that Where a show-cause notice under section 148A(b) was accompanied by reasons and information which persuaded the Assessing Officer to form the tentative opinion that income had escaped assessment for relevant year and assessee had also filed a detailed reply to said notice; it was to be held that impugned order under section 148A(d) and consequential notice under section 148 had been issued/passed after following due process of law. Relevant Para 7.1 are as under:- “7.1 The object behind Section 148A as is evident from the findings in the fountainhead decision of GKN Drive­ shafts (India) Ltd. (supra), is to enable the assessee to be informed of the reasons and information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assess­ ment and, therefore, in turn to empower the assessee to prepare and file an effective reply and thereafter the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/S 148A(d), fol­ lowed by issuance of notice u/S 148 of IT Act. 8.1 Applying this principle of interpretation of taxing statute, it is obvious from reading of section 148A that it does not expressly provide for supply of any mate­ rial/evidence in support of the show-cause notice u/s 148A(b). Thus this Court has no hesitation to hold that statutory provision u/S 148A does not obligate the As­ sessing Officer to supply any material/evidence, pro­ 17 vided the show-cause notice contains reasons disclos­ ing the mind of the Assessing Officer of nursing the prima facie view suggestive of a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8.2 This Court would be failing in its duty by not deal­ ing with the aspect that the concept of reasonable op­ portunity which can reasonably be implied from textual interpretation of section 148A(b) of IT Act (of supply of adverse material) is available to the assessee/peti­ tioner or not. It needs to be tested on the anvil of the trite law that taxing statute is to be strictly construed solely on the plain language employed. 9.2 The insertion of section 148A w.e.f. 1-4-2021 in the Income-tax Act is to ensure that the power u/s 148 is not exercised as a matter of course or without applica­ tion of mind. Thus, the inquiry contemplated by section 148A(b) is not a detailed or full-scale one, but is merely meant to offer reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to avoid casual reopening as­ sessment u/s 148. 9.3 It may not be out of place to mention that the show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) ought to be pregnant with concise and precise information revealing the in­ formation about foundational material which persuaded the Assessing Officer to come to a tentative finding that certain income has escaped assessment. 11. Pertinently, the question of going into the veracity and genuineness of material/evidence forming the opinion of the Assessing Officer suggesting that in­ come of petitioner/assessee has escaped assessment ought not to be gone into while exercising writ jurisdic­ tion under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, the ground of reli­ ability and tenability of the evidence/material is not considered herein. 12. Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself with liberty to petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy under the Income-tax Act in accordance with law.” 17. The Allahabad High Court in Deepak Kumar Yadav v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, [2023] 151 taxmann.com 376 18 (Allahabad) has held that maintainability of the writ petition against the order passed under section 148A(d) is distinct from the scope of adjudication available qua the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. The limited scope available under Arti­ cle 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate an order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act 1961 would be confined to the existence of the information only, in view of the scheme of the Act of 1961. A contrary construction cannot be culled out from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Red Chilli International Sales (supra). Relevant Para 9, 11, 12 is as under:- “9. Reading of Section 148A reveals that the assess­ ing authority shall, before issuing any notice under section 148 conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. On receipt of such information the assessing officer is required to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in the manner specified, as to why a no­ tice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry con­ ducted as per clause (a), if any. The assessing authority is then required to consider the reply of the assessee, if any, in response to the show cause notice referred to in clause (b). It is thereafter that the assessing authority has to de­ cide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148 by passing an order in the man­ ner specified. The proviso exempts the category of cases which are not covered by Section 148A. The proviso to sec­ 19 tion 148A has no applicability in the facts of the present case and, therefore, it does not require any examination. 11. The scheme for reassessment of escaped in­ come introduced vide Finance Act, 2021 provides for an opportunity to the assessee before issuance of notice un­ der section 148 of the Act of 1961. After such notice to the assessee and consideration of reply of assessee in re­ sponse to the notice the assessing authority has to decide on the basis of material available on record by passing an order under section 148A(d) whether a notice under section 148 is fit to be issued in the case. The consideration at the stage of passing order under section 148A(d) is thus limited to ascertainment of information with the Assessing Officer that income of assessee has escaped assessment to tax. Final determination on the question whether income of as­ sessee has actually escaped assessment is then to be made after notice under section 148, by passing an order of assessment or reassessment under section 147, subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153 of the Act of 1961. 12. The Act of 1961 does not contemplate any de­ tailed adjudication on the merits of information available with the Assessing Officer at the stage of passing order un­ der section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961. In our considered view there is a specific purpose for not introducing any fur­ ther enquiry or adjudication in the statute, on the correct­ ness or otherwise of the information, at this stage. The rea­ son for it is obvious. Under the scheme of the Act a detailed procedure has been provided under section 148 for is­ suance of notice whereafter the assessing authority has to determine, in the manner specified, whether income has escaped assessment and the defence of assessee, on all permissible grounds, remains open to be pressed at such stage. The ultimate determination made by the assessing authority under section 147 for reassessment is otherwise 20 subject to appeal under section 246-A of the Act. Merits of the information referable to Section 148A thus remains sub­ ject to the reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice under section 148 of the Act. It is for this reason that issues which require determination at the stage of reassessment proceedings and in respect of which departmental remedy is otherwise available are not required to be determined at the stage of decision by the assessing authority under sec­ tion 149A(d). The scope of decision under section 148A(d) is limited to the existence or otherwise of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped as­ sessment.” 18. Maintainability of the writ petition against the order passed under section 148A(d) is distinct from the scope of adjudication available qua the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. The limited scope available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate an order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 would be confined to the existence of the information only in view of the scheme of the Act of 1961. A contrary construction cannot be culled out from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Red Chilli International Sales (supra). 19. That, the show-cause notice thus should be reasoned enough to enable the assessee to know the mind of the Assessing Officer as regards factum of certain income having escaped assessment and his intention to re-open assessment of such income. This is possible only when the show-cause notice contains enough information to disclose the intention of the Assessing Officer so as to afford a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to 21 respond. The contents of the show-cause notice thus should be precise and concise satisfying the concept of reasonable opportunity. 20. The grounds which have been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is his defence that cannot be examined at the stage of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act,1961 as the Assessing Authority before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 has to rely upon credible information which in the impugned order under Section 148A (d) of the Act, 1961 has already been furnished and thereafter, considering the material it has recorded a finding that it is a fit case where notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 can be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out that the findings which have been recorded by the Assessing Authority are contrary to the material on record and the Assessing Authority has not applied its mind or the Assessing Authority has not considered the reply filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition, at this juncture is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 21. In the light of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, we find that there is no reason to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at this intermediate stage when the proceedings initiated are yet to be concluded by a statutory authority. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. 22. It is made clear that this court has not examined the contentions of the petitioner on merit, only taken note of the facts for 22 examining the fact whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not. It is for the Assessing Authority, while conducting the proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, to examine and decide the case as per the material available on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court in the foregoing paragraphs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil "