ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.N. Divatia for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik for the respondent.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

3. Since a short issue is involved, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, for final disposal.

4. By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to quash and set aside the order dated 30.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 by the respondent as well as direction to quash and set aside notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2022.

5. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

5.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm, inter alia, engaged in the business of construction activities. The petitioner filed its Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 58,66,260/-.

5.2 The respondent issued notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, on 21.03.2022, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why, in view of the reasons mentioned, a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued. The petitioner was asked to furnish response on or before 28.03.2022 i.e. after 07 days from the date of issuance of show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that an adjournment was sought by the petitioner on 26.03.2022 on the IT Portal and a confirmation mail regarding successful submission of adjournment request was also received from communication@cpc.incometax.gov.in.

5.4 It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the adjournment request made by the petitioner, the respondent issued impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2022 holding that the income to the tune of Rs.1,42,55,127/- had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. It was further mentioned in the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act that the petitioner neither furnished any reply or sought any further time for furnishing the reply before 28.03.2022. Subsequent to the order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the respondent also issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2022, which are impugned in the writ petition.

6. Learned advocate Mr. S.N. Divatia for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2022 and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 are patently illegal, bad-in-law and without jurisdiction because the condition precedent for order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Act are not satisfied.

6.1 It is further submitted that the respondent had issued a single notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act at 12:21 PM on 21.03.2022 and called upon the petitioner to respond it on or before 28.03.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner was allowed a very short period to respond to notice despite the fact that time i.e. upto 31.03.2029 was available with the respondent for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. It was further submitted that there were only 4 working days being 22 to 25.03.2022 whereas 26th & 27th March were Saturday-Sunday. It was submitted that the information asked pertain to the period about 4 years required verification of old records which was not possible to do in such short period. It was submitted that the perusal of the provisions of section148A of the Act provides for extension of time which though asked for and the same was not responded. It was lastly submitted that the provision of Section 148A(b) of the Act requires at least 7 days' notic