The court upheld the legality of reopening assessments under the Income Tax Act, confirming the Revenue's compliance with procedural requirements and allowing the appellant to address merits in subsequent proceedings.

Order :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein/assessee has preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 25-7- 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(T)No.183/2023, by which the learned Single Judge has declined to quash the notice issued on 26-6-2023 under Section 148 along with order passed Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) finding no merit.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

3. On the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer on sight Portal of ITBA (Income Tax Business Application), notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee/ appellant herein along with the information on 27-3-2023 to which the assessee filed reply before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 3-4-2023 and order under Section 148A(d) was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 10-4-2023 and thereafter, on 10-4-2023 notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee after getting approval from the competent authority leading to filing of W.P.(T)No.119/2023. The learned Single Judge by order dated 4-5-2023, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 10-4-2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and remitted the matter to the respondents herein for passing order afresh on the notice under Section 148A(b) after supplying all the relevant materials and information to the assessee in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal (2023) 1 SCC 617

4. It is the case of the Revenue that in compliance of order dated 4-5-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, all the relevant materials and information were supplied and received by the assessee on insight portal of ITBA and the assessee was requested to submit his reply on or before 25-5-2023. However, the assessee sought legible copies of statement of Shri Nitin Sankhla and the basis for calculation of the amount of Rs. 60,33,02,548/- which were supplied to the assessee and thereafter, after due formalities, order dated 26/27-6-2023 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed and notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued after fulfilling all the mandatory conditions stipulated in the IT Act and duly following the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued under Section 119(1) of the IT Act, which was challenged by the assessee again in W.P.(T)No.183/2023 which the learned Single Judge this time, dismissed relegating the assessee to file reply before the Assessing Officer, by order dated 25-7-2023. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein/assessee has preferred this writ appeal before this Court.

5. On 1-4-2025, Mr. Ganesh Purohit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/assessee, had submitted before this Court that he is not pressing the issue with regard to applicability of Section 151A of the IT Act.

6. In light of the above-stated submission, the appeal is taken-up for hearing.

7. Mr. Ganesh Purohit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/assessee, would submit as under: -

1. The requested material was not supplied as per letter dated 26-5-2023 and the material for computation of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 60,33,02,548/- was neither supplied nor available on record and therefore, no reply to letter dated 26- 5-2023 could be filed which resulted in denial of opportunity to submit re