ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was neither in violation of the principles of natural justice nor contrary to any provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was no procedural irregularity, and no constitutional validity of any provision of statute was involved. The Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition, particularly in light of the Assessing Officer's findings. The AO had concluded that a transaction of Rs. 90,00,000/- with M/s Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd. was bogus, representing an accommodation entry and income that had escaped assessment for AY 2015-16. The Court also noted the Punjab & Haryana High Court's observation that an order under Section 148A(d) is the commencement of assessment, and the assessee would have ample opportunity to present their case during the subsequent reassessment proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was permitted to raise all points before the assessing officer.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ashiana Housing Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, concerning assessment year 2015-2016. The impugned order permitted the reopening of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the Director of M/s Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd. admitted to providing bogus bills. The AO found that a transaction of Rs. 90,00,000/- with this party was bogus, constituting an accommodation entry and resulting in a fictitious decrease in the assessee's income. The AO concluded that this amount was chargeable to tax and had escaped assessment. The High Court noted that the order under Section 148A(d) is preliminary and the assessee would have further opportunities during assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, for assessment year 2015-2016, is illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, or suffers from procedural irregularity. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner challenged the legality of the impugned order. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the respondents, defended the order. The AO's findings, as quoted in the judgment, indicate that the revenue's position was that the transaction of Rs. 90,00,000/- was bogus, constituted an accommodation entry, and therefore, income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's observation regarding following new provisions for reopening and the Punjab & Haryana High Court's view that an order under Section 148A(d) is the beginning of assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148A(d),Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD - 3 ORDER SHEET WPO/2458/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ASHIANA HOUSING LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 6th September, 2022.
Appearance: Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. S. Rudra, Adv. Mr. R. Raju, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For the Respondents The Court: Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28th July, 2022, relating to the assessment year 2015-2016 and considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order, I find that the same is neither in violation of principles of natural justice nor in contrary to any provision of the Income Tax Act nor there is any procedural irregularity nor any constitutional validity of any provision of statute is involved in this writ petition. Further on perusal of the aforesaid impugned order and particularly recording of the findings by the assessing officer I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition particularly in view of the following findings recorded by the assessing officer in its impugned order which are quoted as hereunder : “The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order as referred earlier, instructed to follow the procedure as per the new provisions of section 148A in a case
2 where notice u/s 148 was issued post 31.03.2021 following old provisions. From that observation of the Hon’ble Court it can be inferred that while considering the scope of escaped income in this case as on date. AO should not limit its scope within the definition of “Assets” only but also to consider the scope of definition of “Expenditure” and Entry in the books of account” as per section 149(1)(b) as it is on this date. The submission of the assessee company in respect of the payment of M/s Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd. has been perused. It is observed that the Director of M/s Culminating Projects Pvt. Ltd., Shri Kamal Jain has admitted in its statement that he is engaged in providing bogus bills as requested by party. Therefore, the contention of the assessee to drop the proceedings not appears to be in order. Considering the nature of transaction of the instant case, there is possession of other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, bogus bills of Rs. 90,00,000/- resulted in fictitious decrease in income of the assessee. Which effects the asset of the assessee company. It is also bring on record that the assessee company has made transaction Rs. 90,00,000/- from aforesaid parties, which is bogus in nature. Hence, the amount received during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 is nothing but assessee’s own unaccounted money taken by routing through banking channel. Alternatively, it is an accommodation entry in the books of account and so it comes under the provision of section 149(1)(b) as it is on this date. Therefore, entry of Rs. 90,00,000/- is considered as income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the AY 2015-16.
3 Hon’ble Pubjab & Haryana High Court [CPW No. 8751 of 2022 (O & M)] in its judgement dated 02.06.2022 has opined that “Order u/s. 148A(d) is just the beginning of assessment and not the final state of assessment and any further argument/contention of assessee as well as assessing officer will be placed at the time of assessment proceedings.” In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for issue notice u/s 148 for reopening of the proceedings of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, order u/s 148A(d) is passed with prior approval of the Ld. PCCIT, W.B & Sikkim.” Furthermore passing an order under Section 148A(d) is not itself an assessment or a demand and the assessee will have still ample opportunity and scope in the proceeding after issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act to make out a case for dropping of the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition being WPO 2458 of 2022 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar for the petitioner to raise any point of this writ petition, before the assessing officer in course of impugned reassessment proceeding.
(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/
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 →- M/S Jaleswar Packaging, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Talasethi Sanmukharao vs. Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S Ramamani Behera (Trade Name S.V.Enterprises) Bhubaneswar vs. Addl Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Prasanta Kumar Biswal vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Dibyanee Agency., Keonjhar. vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026