Orusunnissa Begum vs. The Income Tax Officer

Th s writ petition has been hled under ArtLcle 226 of the Co: rstitution of tndia assailing thrl orCer dated 30.06.2(,f ') passed by respondent No.I under Section l4BA(d) ol the Income Tax Act, 196l ttnefl1 , .the Acr, hereina.Ler) for the assessment year 2O13_14. Pe ritioner is an assessee under the Act. But it is con tenc rtd that as her taxable income fell below the e.\empt :n limit, she did not file return lor t te assessment vear un ler consideration :l I

Be that as it may, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by respondent No.l on 08.06.202 l. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwalr has held that though the notice under Section 148 of the Act rvas issued post 01.04.2021, such notices shall be construed to be notices under Section 148A of the Act, whereafter assessees were given liberty to submit their show cause reply. Upon reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.l passed the impugned order holding that objection of the assessee on monetary limit cannot be sustained' It was further held that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act' This order he has passed after obtaining prior approval of respondent No'2' whereafter notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued.

Basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the objcction to the notice issued under Section l48A(bl of the Act' petitioner has raised various grounds' including the ground that the alleged escaped income ' 2022 SCC onlinc sc 543

We b lve carefully considered the objectLon rised by the petitio rer and the order passed by respor.dent No.1 on 30.06.2022. At this stage we may poirt orrt that the scheme ol Section t48A of the Act is to provicte opportunity of notice ud hearing to the assessee befrrre fornral notice under Sr ction 148 of the Act can be issrreC. In other words, a proceeding under Section lagA(d) cf thr: Act is at a stage J rior to issuance of statutory notice under Section 148 of t re Act. Therefore, the impugned r)rder has been passed € r. a stage even prior to the interlocut.ory s,tage. 7 ' wt ma-y mention that as provided ,,rrer Section r4g of the A t. petitioner would have a host ,rl. remeJies to put up her , lef'ence, including the contentiorr tltat p resent one ,is not a lt case for proceeding under Section 14., of the Act rn vievr Of the jurisdictional em barg;o r; nd :r Section 149(t)(b (iti) of the Act A/1 these aspects; czn t I.,, to 11.," notice urncler.,#"1: i the petit iller in her rep

Consequently, leaving all contentions open to the petitioner we decline to entertain the writ petition' I Writ petition is accordingly dismissed' S.A sWtL-- Miscellaneous applications pending' if any' shall stand closed' However' there shall be no order as to costs' SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSIsTANIREGISTRAR /T/I LT SECTION OFFICER I 8ffi 33 l3 3El ?vtHsE?'i$tssr'et ffifJ""r -" r*o CD Coples i. on" sPare coPY To of the Act. The assessing authority would be under an obligation to deal with such objection raised. But having regard to the scheme of Section 14BA of ttre Act and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashish Aganval's case (supra), we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and interdict the proceedings of the respondents under Section 1'48 of the Act at this stage' \\