Narayanaswamy Gangaraju Vs the Income Tax Officer

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE NOTICE DATED 24/03/2022 ISSUED U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT (ANNX-A) ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1041410887(1)) ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 BY THE R1 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

1.The present petition is filed for the following reliefs:

¶24

i. the Notice dated 24.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act (Annexure-A) ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021. 22/1041410887(1)] issued for the assessment year 2018-2019 by the 1 Respondent;

¶25

ii. the order dated 31.03.2022 made u/s 148A(d) of the Act, for the assessment year 2018-2019 (Annexure-B) [ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042369989(1)] passed by the 1 Respondent;

¶26

iii. quashing the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 05.04.2022 for the assessment year 2018-2019 (Annexure-C) ITBA/AST/S/148_1/202223/1042533367(1)] issued by the 1 Respondent;

¶27

iv. quashing the order dated 01.02.2024 made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, for the assessment year 2018-2019 (Annexure D) [ITBA/AST/S/147/202324/1060384084(1)] passed by the 2nd Respondent;

¶28

V. quashing the order dated 16.08.2024 made u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act, for the assessment year 20182019 (Annexure E) ITBA/PNL/F/272A(1)(d)/202425/1067673753(1)] passed by the 2nd Respondent;

¶29

vi. quashing the order dated 21.08.2024 made u/s 271AAC of the Act, for the assessment year 2018-2019 (Annexure E1) [ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/202425/1067821959(1)] passed by the 2nd Respondent;

¶30

B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the Petitioner's case, in the interest of justice.

¶31

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

¶32

for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶35

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned Notice dated 24.03.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act (for short, ‘IT Act’) in order to point out that the said notice issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 calling upon the petitioner to submit his response / reply within a period of 30.03.2022 (06) days, is contrary to the prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, which is illegal, invalid and inoperative and no proceedings pursuant thereto could have been taken by the respondents and the same deserve to be quashed and as such, the said notice as well as all subsequent proceedings including re-assessment order issued under Section 148A(b) notices, etc., deserve to be quashed. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 01.02.2024 which deserves to be quashed.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order, notices, etc., and submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

The material on record will indicate that having regard to the minimum period of seven days prescribed under Section 148A(b) of the I.T Act as held by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Mukesh J. Ruparel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(2)(1) – W.P.No.15268/2023 dated 25.07.2023, that if the notice under Section 148A(b) prescribes a period lesser than a period of seven days as contemplated in the said provision, the said notice would be vitiated resulting in quashment of not only the notice but also the subsequent assessment orders, penalty notices, orders, etc. In the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court, it is held as under:

¶40

“Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 15^th March 2023 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the order dated 31^st March 2023 passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Act and notice dated 31^st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.

¶41

2. Petitioner is an individual who did not file return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 because his income was less than taxable limit.

¶42

3. Petitioner received a notice dated 15^th March 2023 under Clause 148A(b) of the Act from Respondent No.1, stating that Respondent No.1 has information which suggests that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶45

2016-17 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Petitioner was provided with information / enquiry on which reliance was placed in the form of annexure to the notice and Petitioner was called upon to show cause on or before 28^th March 2023 as to why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued. The information which suggested that there has been an escapement of income from assessment provided details of a property that Petitioner had purchased. Petitioner was directed to provide head-wise computation of income, details of purchase of immovable property during Financial Year 2015-16 supported with copy of registered agreement with annexure II, details of payment made and source of acquisition of said immovable property.

¶46

4. Petitioner submitted an elaborate reply on 18^th March 2023 and also raised certain objections. The main objection raised was that under the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act, the assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard by serving upon the assessee a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice being not less than seven days but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which said notice has been issued. Since the notice dated 15^th March 2023 provides only for five days when the law requires minimum seven days to be given, the notice itself was bad-in-law.

¶47

5. Along with reply, Petitioner also provided a photo copy of the notarised affidavit of Petitioner's brother affirmed on 18^th March 2023, in which the brother has confirmed of giving gift of Rs.75 lakhs to Petitioner on 26^th March 2019, which is much beyond the relevant Assessment Year.

¶48

6. Respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 31^st March 2023 under Clause D of Section 148A of the Act. In the order, Respondent No.1 states that from the statement issued by HDFC Bank for the period 1^st April 2018 to 31^st March 2019 of the brother, it is seen that there is a credit entry of Rs.1 Crore on 19^th March 2019, out of which Rs.75 lakhs has been paid to Petitioner on 26^th March 2019. Respondent No.1 also states that the gift deed submitted by Petitioner from the brother has not been notarised.

¶49

7. Moreover, Respondent No.1 states that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment without mentioning what is the amount of income that has escaped

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶51

assessment. Further, the approval under Section 151 of the Act which is annexed to the impugned order is of one Poonam Vijay Chhabria whose PAN number is also entirely different from the PAN number of Petitioner. Respondent No.1 is totally silent about the objections raised by Petitioner of minimum seven days notice required. Mr. Gandhi states that on each of these grounds not only the impugned order dated 31^st March 2023 but also the notice dated 31^st March 2023 itself should be quashed and set aside.

¶52

8. No reply has been filed though Petition was served more than a month ago. We have, therefore, decided to go ahead and consider the matter and dispose it since we were, prima facie, satisfied that there was merit in Petitioner's submissions.

¶53

Section 148-A(B) of the Act reads as under:-

¶54

“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)."

¶55

9. The notice dated 15^th March 2023 gives time only up to 20^th March 2023 to show cause. We have to note that even the guidelines dated 1^st August 2022 for issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act also provide that if the result of an enquiry / information available suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard by assessee by issuing the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the notice shall provide between seven to thirty days time for the assessee to submit their reply. A template of the show cause notice is also annexed to the guidelines. Therefore, in view of the guidelines, we would also read that the minimum seven days required to be made as a mandatory requirement and failure to comply with

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶58

would render a notice itself invalid. Therefore, on this ground alone, the notice requires to be quashed and set aside.

¶59

Perhaps, being aware of this position, Respondent No.1 has chosen not to deal with these objections raised by Petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice.

¶60

10. We also found in the said guidelines a provision that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act shall be sent to assessee along with the approval of the specified authority for such order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. In the case at hand, the approval that has been sent is of some other assessee and not Petitioner. This also indicates nonapplication of mind by Respondent No.1. On this ground also, the order dated 31^st March 2023 impugned in the Petition is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶61

11. Further, in the guidelines to which is annexed a template of the order to be passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act provides for mentioning of amount escaped based on the information and how this amount is represented in the form of assets. It also provides that the Assessing Officer will specify the quantum of income / assets / expenditure / entry which has escaped assessment. This not stated in the order under Clause D of Section 148 of the Act. On this ground also, the said order dated 31^st March 2023 is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶62

12. Further, there is a factually incorrect statement made in the order that the affidavit of Petitioner's brother that was submitted was not notarised when it was factually a notarised affidavit.

¶63

13. Further, in the impugned order, it is stated that the HDFC statement / document do not substantiate the credit worthiness and genuineness of the lender of the gift, i.e., brother of Petitioner.

¶64

Mr. Gandhi states that if only Petitioner was called upon to submit, Petitioner would have submitted evidence towards credit worthiness of the brother because in the show cause notice issued, Petitioner was only directed to call upon to disclose the source from which he got money to pay for the flat.

¶65

In over view, therefore,, on this ground also, the impugned order dated 31^st March 2023 is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶68

14. Accordingly, we hereby quash and set aside the notice dated 15^th March 2023 issued under clause (b) of Section 148-A of the Act, the impugned order dated 31^st March 2023 issued under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act and consequent notice dated 31^st March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.

¶69

15. Petition disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶70

In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Notice at Annexure – A dated 24.03.2022 prescribes a period of 06 days, which is lesser than the minimum prescribed period of seven days as contemplated under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mukesh’s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notice at Annexure – A dated 24.03.2022 and also consequential proceedings, orders, notices, etc., deserves to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

¶71

In the result, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶74

(ii) The impugned Notice at Annexure – A dated

¶75

24.03.2022 order at Annexure – B dated 31.03.2022

¶76

9 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:11986 WP No. 5970 of 2025

¶78

Notice at Annexure –C dated 05.04.2022, Assessment Order dated 01.02.2024 at Annexure-D, Demand notice at Annexure-D1 dated 01.02.2024, Order dated 16.08.2024 at Annexure-E, AnnexureE1 dated 21.08.2024 and order at Annexure-F dated 08.10.2024 are hereby quashed.

¶79

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioner subject to all just exceptions, in accordance with law.

¶80

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶81

BS

¶82

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97

Narayanaswamy Gangaraju v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanaswamy Gangaraju v. the Income Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bondada Engineering Limited Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri Sugali Nagaraju Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Tamara Leisure Experiences Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/S. Aring Prodev Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial

Sri Syed Nizamuddin Vs Sri M Om Prakash

Nutricia International Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lgsto 63