BHA vs. AGAR VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.,KOLKATAVS.I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20.11.2025 for the AY 2014-15.

“7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The main ground of challenge as was urged by Mr. Walve, learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing can be summarized as under: It was urged that the procedure as prescribed under section 148A(b) of the Act as also the principles of natural justice had been violated, inasmuch as while the Petitioner was given the information in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act, the material which ought to have been provided to the Petitioner was not so furnished, in the absence whereof the Petitioner was precluded from fling an effective reply to the show cause notice. 9. Mr. Manwani, learned Counsel for the revenue on the other hand stated that there was no such obligation cast upon the revenue in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act to provide to the assessee anything beyond providing him the information. 10. Per contra, Mr. Walve, learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1 and in particular paragraph 10 thereof which reads as under: "10. (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

“10. In light of the above, it was contended before me that as per the decisions of the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts, the AO was duty bound to supply all adverse material to the assessee along with the copies of reasons in terms of the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act and the nonsupply of the same was fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.148 of the Act. That in the facts of the present case the AO having not supplied the relevant material, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act to frame assessment u/s.147 of the Act was bad in law. 11. The Ld. DR though vehemently objected to the contention raised by the assessee, however, was unable to counter the factual contention made by theLd. Counsel for the assessee that neither was adverse material pertaining to the alleged accommodation entry taken by the assessee supplied to the assessee along with the copies of reasons in the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act, nor despite the specific request made by the assessee in his letter filed in response to notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act and also that the reply of the assessee was not considered by the AO pointing out factual inaccuracies in the facts noted by him relating to alleged escapement of income of the assessee, which were fatal to the issue, while passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. He was also unable to distinguish the case laws relied upon by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee , particularly the jurisdictional High Court , holding order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act without considering assesses reply to notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and without confronting all adverse material to the assessee, to be invalid. 12. In view of the above, since the provisions of law as interpreted by Courts have held that the AO is mandatorily required to provide all adverse material to the assessee for seeking his response to the same in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act for a valid assumption of jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act and non-supply of the same is fatal to assumption of jurisdiction and the facts in the present case demonstrating clearly that theAO had not supplied the relevant adverse material to the assessee, I have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the AO u/s.148A(d) of the Act and the consequential issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is in violation of the provisions of law. The order passed u/s 147 of the Act clearly is without valid jurisdiction is directed to be quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata