The principles of natural justice must be upheld in tax assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

O R D E R

% 06.10.2025

1. This petition has been directed to be listed for “directions’ today. Though, the same was reserved for judgment, the same is listed for the reason that while considering the matter for judgment, a need was felt that respondent must file a counter affidavit. The same is for the following factual aspect.

2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Final Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025, with the following prayers:

“A. Allow Writ Petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari seeking reassessment order dated 21.03.2025 direction quashing the passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act , 1961, bearing DIN no. ITBA /AST /S/147 /2024 -25 /1074799172 (1), and all subsequent proceedings for the Assessment Year 2017–18, being in violation of the principles of natural justice due to non- grant of personal hearing and non -furnishing of relied-

upon documents to the petitioner;

B. Direct the Respondent Revenue Authorities not to take any coercive action in furtherance of the impugned reassessment order , penalty proceedings and demand, during the pendency of these proceedings;….”

3. Suffice to state that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 9184/2024 challenging the notice dated 01.03.2024 issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act , 1961 (the Act). He has also challenged the consequent order dated 30.03.2024 under Section 148A (d) of the Act. The said petition was dismissed by this Court by stating in paragraph no. 13 as under:-

“13. It is relevant to note that at the threshold stage of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act, the AO is not required to finally conclude whether any income has escaped assessment. The notice merely initiates the reassessment proceedings. Thus, all rights and contentions of the petitioner to contest the quantum as well as the taxability of the amounts as reflected in the impugned notice and the impugned order are reserved. However, at this stage, we are unable to accept that any interference by this court is warranted in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

4. The petitioner has approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) 31018/2024, which was listed on 03.01.2025 when the Supreme Court has passed the following order:-

“1. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner what has been observed by the High Court in Para 10 of the impugned judgment is factually incorrect.

2. If that be so, it was expected of the petitioner to go back to the High Court pointing out that there is an error.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel sought permission to withdraw this petition as he intends to go back to the High Court.

4. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as not pressed.”

5. The petitioner has filed a Review Petition before this Court being Review Petition No. 81/2025, this Court in Paragraphs No. 7 and 8 has held as under:-

“7. The notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act which contains information to the effect that there were large cash deposits in the Assessee’s bank accounts was issued only to enable the Assessee to explain the same. In the present case, we are unable to fault the decision of the AO that “it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act for want of necessary explanation. As stated above, we also clarify that the issue as to the exact quantum of cash deposited in the bank account of the Assessee as well as the Assessee’s explanation regarding the same is required to be examined in detail during the assessment proceedings. We a