IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to the time limits and procedural requirements for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted and clarified by the court.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

CM No.44632/2023 (of petitioner for rectification/review of the order dated 07.08.2023)

1. The petitioner has filed the present application seeking review of the order dated 07.08.2023 whereby the above captioned petition was dismissed. The petitioner had filed the above captioned petition challenging a notice dated 17.04.2023 (hereafter `the impugned notice') issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereafter `the Act') for reopening the assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-2020.

2. The impugned notice indicated the transactions forming the basis of income that had escaped assessment, related to supplies from two parties: Milap Advertising and Marketing Private Limited for an aggregate amount of Rs.47,67,772/-; and Angel Enterprises for an aggregate value of Rs.44,80,000/-. In so far as the supplies received from Angel Enterprises are concerned, it was not disputed that the petitioner had provided copies of the ledger account which indicated that the said supplies were booked on 31.03.2018 (Financial Year 2017-2018) and did not pertain to the Assessment Year 2019-2020. However, the expenses relating to supplies from Milap Advertising and Marketing Private Limited were booked in the Financial Year 2018-2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The value of supplies from Milap Advertising and Marketing Private Limited were less that Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) and therefore, the income for Assessment Year 2019-2020 escaping assessment could not exceed the said amount. Consequently, the period of limitation for reopening the assessment was three years and not ten years.

3. This court held that the impugned notice was within the stipulated period after excluding the period afforded to the petitioner to respond to the notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act and the time for passing the order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act under the fifth and the sixth proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, the petition was rejected.

4. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 07.08.2023, essentially on four grounds. First, that there were no accommodation entries in its books as the proper purchase bills for the work done by the supplier were provided along with the applicable GST. In addition, TDS was also deducted on the amounts paid/credited. Second, that the impugned notice is vague and unspecific, and has no nexus with the petitioner. Third, that the proposals and approvals for issuing the impugned notice under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Act were not provided to the petitioner. And fourth, that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is less than Rs.50,00,000/-; therefore, the notice beyond the period of three years could not be issued.

5. The petitioner's claim that there is no escapement of income from assessment is a matter of merits, which is required to be decided by the Assessing Officer. We are also unable to accept that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act is vague or cryptic. The said notice sets out the transactions alleged to have escaped assessment under the Act. The petitioner has also contested the said allegation by providing details of the said transactions.

6. The contention that any approval for issuance of the impugned notice is required to be provided along with the notice is unmerited. However, if the petitioner desires to obtain a copy of the approval, it would be open for the petitioner to apply for the same and the respondent shall provide a copy to the petitioner.

7. As noted above, it is the petitioner's contention that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- has been incorrectly calculated and therefore, the limitation for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act is three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the said period of limitation.

8. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the notice under Section