ORDER :

(Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.)

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 passed under Section 148(A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) and notice dated 27.03.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued under Section 148 of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 27.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19 which is based on the order dated 25.03.2022 under Section 148(A)(d) of the Act issued by the respondent No.1. Both, the order and the notice are illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite absence of any information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) has been passed resulting in issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. He further argued that without taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner/assessee, the impugned order/notice have been passed. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing such an order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2023 (1) SCC 617; Red Chilli International Sales vs. Income Tax Officer and Anr., 2023 SC OnLine SC 237; judgment passed by the High of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in case of Principal Commissioner of Tax-I vs. Shri Pukhraj Soni passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 53/2017 dated 06.02.2019 and the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of Sita Ram Gautam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in Writ Petition No. 8416 of 2023 dated 20.04.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the petition against the show-cause notice. She further submitted that the reopening of assessment is at the very initial stage and premature and thereafter, as per the provisions of law, there would be various opportunities to the petitioner/assessee to raise their grievance and submit reply. In view of the aforesaid, this petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that earlier assessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was subjected to challenge before the Apex Court on the ground that the same is bad in law in view of the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2021 which has amended the Income Tax Act by introducing new provisions i.e. Sections 147 to 151 of the Act with effect from 1st of April, 2021. It is also argued that the Apex Court has allowed the appeals in part modifying the impugned orders to the extent that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act may be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be a show-cause notice in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act and granted 30 days' time to the Assessing Officer to provide the respective assessees' information and material relied upon by the revenue so that the assessee can reply to the show cause notices within two weeks of the notice. It is contended that in view of the modified directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the authorities have issued the impugned notice of assessment asking a response within 30 days from the petitioner. As far as the contention of the petitioner that impugned orders/notices are without jurisdiction as the same is hit by limitation, a remedy of challenging the same, even the question of limitation is available to the petitioner in terms of Section 246 o