Order us/ 148A(d) being reproduction of notice indicated response was not considered

Order us/ 148A(d) set aside as it was a reproduction of notice showing AO had not considered the petitioner’s response. 

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has set aside order us/ 148A(d) as the order was a reproduction of the notice indicating that the AO had not considered the petitioner’s response.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4299 (2024) (10) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner assessee had filed a Writ praying for quashing of Impugned notice u/s 148A(b), impugned Order passed u/s 148A(d) and Impugned notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for initiation of re-assessment proceedings.

On of the ground of the petitioner’s on which he had challenged the impugned notices/order was that the impugned order had been passed without considering the reply furnished by the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the AO had issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, proposing to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. The AO had enclosed an Annexure with the said notice, which indicated the material that suggested that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment.

One of the allegations was that the petitioner had transactions with the entities that were engaged in the practice of availing/issuing bogus sale/purchase bills. The second information was regarding the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by various entities on the income which was chargeable in respect of the interest other than the interest on securities. The deduction of TDS suggested that the corresponding income from the interest on which TDS had been deducted, had escaped assessment.

The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice furnishing certain details. It was stated that the income from the interest had not escaped assessment as the same was brought to tax. He also filed a copy of the return which reflected that the interest received by the petitioner was included in his total income had been assessed to tax.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that notwithstanding the reply, the AO had proceeded to pass the impugned order which was, in effect, a substantial reproduction of the said notice. The impugned order also indicated that the AO had not considered the petitioner’s response that the interest, which according to the AO had escaped assessment, had been assessed to tax. This clearly indicated that the AO did not apply his mind to the reply furnished by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO for considering the petitioner’s reply afresh and to pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from date, after making necessary inquiries, in accordance with law.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT
• Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC
• Case remanded in absence of finding if disallowance u/s 40A(3) covered by Rule 6DD