Order passed u/s 148A(d) quashed as it incorrectly mentioned that no reply was filed

Order passed under Section 148A(d) quashed as it incorrectly mentioned that no reply was filed by the assessee.

In a recent judgment, Rajasthan High Court quashed  order passed under Section 148A(d) as it incorrectly mentioned that no reply was filed by the assessee whereas reply was duly uploaded on the Portal of the Income Tax Department.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4385 (2025) (01) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing correctness, legality and validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), followed by notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

Amongst various grounds, one of the grounds taken by the petitioner was that in response to the notice under Section 148A(b) served on the petitioner, he had submitted a detailed reply for appropriate consideration but yet the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act incorrectly mentioned that no reply was filed, which means that the Assessing Officer (AO) completely ignored to take into consideration the reply of the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion that any material information in possession of the AO suggested that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order was liable to be set aside only on this ground.

In reply, the Department fairly admitted that the reply was, in fact, filed by the petitioner on the Income Tax Portal. However, there were certain technical glitches due to which even though reply was received on record in the electronic form but the same could not be attached with the records and therefore, on such basis, the officer dealing with the matter recorded that there was no reply.

In view of admission of fact of filing of reply by the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court observed that two things were clear. Firstly, that in response to show cause notice issued to the petitioner, assessee initially submitted a detailed reply which was duly uploaded on the Portal of the Income Tax Department. The second admitted fact which vitiated the decision making process and warrants our interference was that the reply filed by petitioner was not taken into consideration.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that apparently, reply filed by the petitioner escaped notice and consideration of the concerned authority which without anything more, was sufficient to vitiate the entire decision making process warranting interference.  Therefore, the order impugned was liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that Impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act as also notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act was unsustainable in law and was set aside.

The Hon’ble High Court directed the Department to consider the reply filed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision there on in accordance with the law.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• ITR was not non est for no e-verification when AO took cognizance of returned income
• Section 43CB & ICDS-III is applicable to contractors not to real estate developers
• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.
• Compliance history of supplier can’t be used to invalidate genuine business transactions of buyer
• Reassessment quashed as AO issued notice u/s 148 instead of 153C as reopening was based on search