THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.16014 of 2024 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show-cause notice dated 16.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter), the order dated 16.04.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and also the show-cause notice dated

31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

3. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned order and the show-cause notices was:

i. That the impugned proceedings initiated is without jurisdiction;

ii. That the impugned proceedings and the order under challenge is otherwise barred by limitation; and iii. That the impugned order and the show-cause notices issued are in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. The facts of the case in nutshell, are that, the petitioner M/s. Sri Sai Dhurga Balaji Health and Educational Welfare Society, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act received a show-cause notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148A(b) of the Act from respondent No.1 through e-mail regarding reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 stating that based on information received, M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation had written-off a bad debt of Rs.2,34,37,765/- pertaining to the petitioner for assessment year 2017-18, which is, as per Section 41(1) of the Act deemed to be an income from business or profession that escaped assessment. However, during this period, the Secretary of the petitioner’s Society was suffering from viral pyrexia with upper respiratory tract infection and was advised rest for a period of 10 days. After getting discharged from the hospital on 15.04.2024, the Secretary verified emails on 16.04.2024 and discovered the notice dated 31.03.2024 had given time only till 12.04.2024 for reply. Despite submitting an adjournment request both physically and via email on 16.04.2024, respondent No.1 proceeded to issue an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the same day without providing adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present his case.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in accordance with Section 149 of the Act, issuance of reassessment notices is subject to prescribed time limitations. The first proviso to Section 149(1) clearly states that for the assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the notices under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of the Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. Further, prior to the Finance Act, 2021, Section 149(1)(b) of the Act stipulated that a notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year within four years, but not more than six years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year and this six year limitation period is absolute and cannot be extended except in specific circumstances enumerated in the Act, none of which apply to the present case.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Department in the instant case initiated reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18. However, following the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as applicable before the Finance Act, 2021, the Department could have issued the notice under Sect