BAHULEYAN NAIR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the impugned order (Ext. P3) passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice (Ext. P4) were unsustainable. The primary reasoning was that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the issuance of the order and notice without providing a proper hearing violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and notice. The matter was remanded back to the respondents to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. No specific finding was made on the maintainability of the notice under Section 149, as the matter was decided on procedural grounds.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Bahuleyan Nair, an NRI engaged in business in Sharjah (UAE), filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a subsequent notice. The petitioner received a notice dated 07.03.2023 under Section 148A(b) requiring him to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued, based on enclosed annexures. The petitioner filed a reply, contending that the notice was not maintainable as Section 149 of the Act stipulated a threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- for escaped assessment entries to issue a notice. The petitioner claimed he was not provided an opportunity to be heard in person, and his reply was not considered before the impugned order and notice were issued.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are sustainable when the petitioner was not provided an adequate opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 148A(b)? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order (Ext. P3) and notice (Ext. P4) were unsustainable because no opportunity of being heard in person was provided, violating the principles of natural justice and the specific provisions of Section 148A(b). Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the notice under Section 148A(b) was not maintainable in light of Section 149 of the Act, which requires escaped assessment entries in books of accounts to exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- for a notice to be issued. The petitioner asserted that his reply was not considered. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
Heard Smt. Nikitha Susan Paulson, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jose Joseph, Learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.
The Writ Petition is challenging Ext. P3 Order and Ext. P4 Notice on the ground that Ext.P3 Order was passed as per Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
The petitioner is a Non – Resident Indian (NRI). The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is carrying out business in Sharjah (UAE).
The petitioner was received a notice dated 07.03.2023 under Section 148A (b) of the Income Tax Act requiring him to show cause as to why, in view of the annexure enclosed with the notice, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act should not be issued.
WP(C) NO. 29108 OF 2023 3
The petitioner filed reply to the said notice taking various ground that the Show Cause notice was not maintainable as Section 149 of the Income Tax Act specifically provided that unless entries in the books of accounts which has escaped assessment is more than Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), no notice can be issued for an assessment year. The petitioner was not provided any facility of being heard in person and no consideration of the reply, the impugned order Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 Notice was passed. Section 148 A (b) of the Income Tax Act especially provides the opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving him with a notice. There is no opportunity of being heard provided to the petitioner, issued Ext.P3 Order and thereafter Ext.P4 Notice which are unsustainable.
The present petition is allowed. The impugned order Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 Notice are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to pass a fresh order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE rpr
WP(C) NO. 29108 OF 2023 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
