The main legal point established is the requirement for a prior show cause notice to consider the assessee's response and the prohibition on raising new issues not previously raised in the show cause notice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Writ Petitioner on the file of the 1st Respondent to quash the impugned order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.03.2023 in DIN & Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051466692(1) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.)

1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 28.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Income Tax Act) and the consequential notice dated 28.03.2023 under Section 148 thereof.

2. The petitioner received a notice dated 28.02.2023 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued in respect of the transactions specified in the annexure to the notice. A reply dated 03.03.2023 was issued by the petitioner in respect thereof. Thereafter, the impugned order was issued concluding that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. This writ petition was filed in the said facts and circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on three grounds. The first ground is that the notice was issued under Section 148A(d) entirely on the basis of information obtained from the Insight Portal in accordance with the risk management strategy of the Income Tax Department. In support of the contention that information obtained on the Insight Portal cannot be the sole basis for issuance of notice under Section 148, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Anwar Mohammed Shaikh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others in W.P.No.2836 of 2022, order dated 13.03.2023, particularly paragraphs 24 and 25 thereof.

4. The next submission of learned counsel was that there is no direct or live link between the information obtained from the Insight Portal and the income allegedly escaping assessment, and that such direct link is an essential prerequisite for the issuance of a notice under Section 148. In support of this proposition, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Digil Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others in W.P.No.1798 of 2022, order dated 08.03.2023, particularly paragraph 10 thereof. The last ground on which the impugned order was challenged is that a finding was recorded therein on an issue not raised in the show cause notice. In specific, he pointed out that it is recorded in the impugned order that immovable property was purchased for the sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, whereas the guideline value on which stamp duty was paid was Rs.1,42,75,000/-. On this basis, the impugned order records that the differential sum of Rs.17,75,000/- is assessable under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act as income from other sources. Learned counsel submits that the show cause notice did not call for an explanation with regard to the difference between the sale consideration and guideline value and, therefore, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to respond. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Excel Commodity and Derivative (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, [2023] 150 Taxmann.com 94 (Calcutta), particularly paragraph 8 thereof, learned counsel submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 148 should not be lightly resorted to for purposes of re-opening an assessment.

5. In response to these submissions, Dr.Ramasamy, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, contended that the impugned order contains adequate reasons and does not warrant interference. From internal page 3 of the order, learned counsel pointed out that it is recorded therein that the market value of the property was Rs.1,45,75,000/-, whereas the sale consideration was Rs.1,25,00,000/-. According to learned senior standing counsel, the petitioner was put on notice on this issue in the show cause notice, as is