IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.23815 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.26962, 22798 & 22799 of 2022 C.Perumalsamy ...Petitioner Vs.

Income Tax Officer Non.Corporate Ward 7 (3)

Room No.605, Wanaparthy Block-VI Floor Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034 ...Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records contained in order dated 20.07.2022 bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043953513(1) issued by the respondent for AY 2017-18 for PAN:ATXPM5780B and all consequential notices, letters and orders thereto, including notice dated

20.07.2022 bearing ITBA/AST/M/148-1/2022-23/1043957070(1) issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Act for 2017-18 for PAN ATXPM5780B and to quash the same and to consequentially forbear the respondent, or it superiors, subordinates, agents, etc., from re-assessing the petitioner's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

For Petitioner : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi Junior Standing Counsel Mr.B. Ramana Kumar Standing Senior Counsel ************

O R D E R

This case was dismissed vide Order dated 11.11.2025. The operative portion of the order was dictated in open Court. However, while finalizing the detailed order, a doubt was entertained as to whether a correct conclusion was arrived on 11.11.2025 or not.

2. After perusing the documents and the list of dates and events qua Paragraph No.28 from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, (2023) 1 SCC 617 and Paragraph Nos.112 and 114 from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC Online SC 2993, it has been necessary to recall the order dated

11.11.2025.

3. For a fair disposal of the case, it will be therefore useful to refer to passage from Paragraph No.28 from Ashish Agarwal case (cited supra and Paragraph Nos.112 and 114 from Rajeev Bansal case (cited supra).

4. For the sake of clarity, Paragraph No.28 from Ashish Agarwal case (cited supra) is reproduced below:- “28. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:

(i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show cause notices within two weeks thereafter (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required;

(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section

148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted)

(iv) All defences which may be available to