O R D E R

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the orders passed by the respondent under Section i) 148 A dated 06.04.2022, 148 A (b) dated

23.03.2022 and 148 A (d) dated 05.04.2022 and to quash the same.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

i) The petitioner has sold an agricultural land during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16 along with two others for a total consideration of Rs.74,75,000/-, in which, the petitioner's 1/3rd share being Rs.24,91,667/- and out the said amount, the petitioner deposited Rs.15,00,000/- with City Union Bank.

ii) Whileso, the petitioner received an impugned notice No.1 dated

23.03.2023, to show cause as to why proceedings under Section under Section 148 (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) should not be initiated against the petitioner/assessee, for, the amount more than Rupees 50 Lakh had escaped assessment for the AY 2015-16.

iii) According to the petitioner, the sale of immovable property was an agricultural property, which is exempted from tax and the respondent treated the total sale proceeds of Rs.74,75,000 as the petitioner's income, eventhough the petitioner is entitled to only 1/3rd i.e. Rs.24,91,667/- Therefore, the information, which is available with the respondent is factually incorrect.

iv) However, the respondent passed the impugned order on

05.04.2022 and also issued consequential impugned notice No.2 on 06.04.2022. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notices dated 23.03.2022, 05.04.2022 and 06.04.2022, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present Writ Petition challenging the same.

3. Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned notice issued under section 148 A (b) dated

23.03.2022 by mainly contending that the same is beyond the period of limitation, and hence, the orders passed under Section 148A (d) dated 05.04.2022 and consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof viz, impugned Noitice No.2 issued under Section 148 A dated 06.04.2022 are also not sustainable.

3.1 The learned counsel further contended that the impugned show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 is also not sustainable on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel contended that in terms of Section 148 A (b) of the Act, the Assessing officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving notice on him giving time not less than seven days but not more than 30 days to the assessee for furnishing his explanation, whereas, in the present case, the respondent issued the show cause notice dated 23.03.2022, calling upon the petitioner to submit response with supporting documents through electronically via. e-proceeding facility on or before 29.03.2022, which notice itself was received by the petitioner only on 28.03.2022, i.e.

one day prior to the date fixed for filing reply and within one day, no assessee can be able to file reply/objections in an effective manner, however, the respondent, despite knowing the fact the show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 was received by the petitioner only on 28.03.2022 passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 by stating that the petitioner/assessee did not respond to the show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 and hence, the proposals made in the show cause notice are confirmed.

3.2 Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 is not sustainable, as, the said notice grants shorter response time than that was envisaged by the statute under Section 148 A (b) of the Act and hence, the same deserves to be quashed along with the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 and impugned notice no.2 dated

06.04.2022.

4. Per contra, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 was served on the petitioner not only by way of speed post but also through e-

portal, as early as on 23.03.202