M AND M GEMS vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

Avneesh Jhingan, J

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

The brief facts are that the assesee firm filed returns pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. A notice dated 11.03.2022 was served for explaining the transactions in the bank account of the petitioner maintained in the Indusind Bank. The petitioner supplied the information and documents on 14.03.2022. Thereafter, a notice dated 17.03.2022 was issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act. The petitioner responded to the notice by filing a reply on 23.03.2022. On passing of the impugned order, the present petition has been filed.

The grievance raised is that the impugned order is non-speaking and is in violation of Section 148(A) of the Act and the guidelines dated 01.08.2022 issued by the department.

The issue involved in the petition is that without considering the reply, the non-speaking impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)] to submit that the impugned order is passed in violation of provision of Section 148A of the Act and the guidelines.

Learned counsel for the respondents albeit defends the impugned order is not able to distinguish the present case from the decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that reply filed by the petitioner was brushed aside by stating that the reply filed was not satisfactory.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law.