JUDGMENT :

(Vijay Bishnoi, J.) :

1. Since common question is involved in both these writ petitions, they are being decided together by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of DBCWP No.10866/2023 are taken into consideration.

3. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 28.3.2023 and 29.3.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 – the Income Tax Officer, Nagaur (for short ‘the Jurisdictional Authority’) under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the IT Act’) and the consequential notices dated 28.3.2023 and 29.3.2023 issued by the Jurisdictional Authority under Section 148 of the IT Act.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Tirumala Enterprises and engaged in trading of marbles, stones and granite etc. The petitioner is regularly filing his income tax return and also filed income tax return for the assessment year 2019-20 on 29.10.2019 declaring total income of INR 3,13,390/-.

5. The Jurisdictional Authority issued a notice to the petitioners dated 13.3.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act to show cause why notice under Section 148 of the IT Act should not be issued in view of the information available with it. Along with the notice, an annexure has also been supplied to the petitioner, wherein information available with the respondent-department is disclosed. Along with the annexure, a photo copy of the Insight Portal is also attached.

6. In response to the above notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 17.3.2023, wherein apart from submitting his defence, he has prayed that before proceeding further in the matter, he may be provided copy of the report of the DDIT/ADIT (Inv.) and complete details and particulars of fake entities on the basis of which it has been alleged by the respondent-department that the petitioner has received bogus invoice from fake and bogus entities.

7. The Jurisdictional Authority, after considering the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner, has passed the order dated 28.3.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act and subsequently issued notice dated 28.3.2023 under Section 148 of the IT Act, which are under challenge in these writ petitions.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 28.3.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act as well as the consequential notice dated 28.3.2023 under Section 148 of the IT Act are in contravention of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, it is prayed that the same may be declared perse illegal and void. It is further argued that the impugned order dated 28.3.2023 has been passed by the Jurisdictional Authority without supplying complete material and documents on which the respondent-department has relied upon to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal, reported in 2022 (7) ADJ 319, has issued a categorical direction in Para 8(i) that the Assessing Officer of the respondent-department is required to submit all the information and material to the assessee, which have been relied upon by the Revenue so that the assessee can reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act.

10. It is contended that with the notice dated 13.3.2023, issued by the Jurisdictional Authority under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act, an annexure is enclosed, wherein information available with the Jurisdictional Authority is disclosed. It states that as per the information available with the department, it is seen that during the financial year 2018-19, the assessee made transaction of bogus purchase from fake entities to the tune of Rs.79,31,854/- in the name of M/s Tirumala Enterprises. Apart from the above information, three other information about TDS, Statements and Time Deposits have been also disclosed.

11. So far as the other three information are concerned, the petitioner easily obtained details as it relates