ANKIT MADHARIA vs. UNION OF INDIA

CGHC010319092022

2026:CGHC:37388

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 227 of 2022 Ankit Madharia S/o Dr. Arun Madharia Aged About 31 Years Ankit Palace, P.S. And P.O. Rs University University, Rohinipuram District Raipur Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2 - Chief Commissioner Of Incom Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001. 3 - National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Through Principal Commissioner Of Incom Tax, North Block, New Delhi. 4 - Incom Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001.

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI : Ms. Mandwi Bhardwaj, CGC For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Ajay Kamrani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) To call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned order passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act and all the proceedings flowing through said order.

2 (iii) To declare illegal and quash impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act and all proceedings flowing through said notice. (iv) to stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice [Annexure-P/1(b)] and direct Respondent No.3 not to pass final orders till disposal of present petition. (v) to pass such other and/ or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by respondent No.4 on 30.03.2022. However, the reply filed by the assessee was not taken into consideration on the ground that such representation was not accompanied by evidence and relevant books of account. He would submit that material documents along with relevant books of account were filed along with the reply against the show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 3 under Sections 148A and 148B of the Act of 1961 on 20.03.2022. He would further submit that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 11.10.2022, and till date final decision has not been taken by the authority concerned, therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the reply and material documents submitted by the petitioner and pass final order. 3. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that the final order is yet to be passed by respondent No. 3 and the order impugned is only a preliminary order. The petitioner may raise all available grounds before the competent authority during the assessment proceedings; thus, the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

3 4. Heard. 5. From perusal of order dated 30.03.2022 would reveal that the reply to the show-cause notice was not accepted in the absence of relevant books of account and documents by the authorities concerned. As informed by Mr. Rao, such documents were placed by the petitioner before respondent No. 3 against the notice issued under Sections 148A and 148B of the Act of 1961, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the reply along with the documents submitted by the petitioner while taking decision in the matter. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition is hereby disposed of. 7. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE Nadim