Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notice Issued U/S 148A(b) Of Income Tax Act Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Section 148A(b) provides for a show cause notice to be issued to the assessee, asking as to why a notice for income escaping assessment may not be issued against them.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra dismissed the petition on account of alternate remedy available to the Petitioner-

The Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is having a remedy to challenge the order/notice by way of filing an appeal and the ground raised by him with respect to jurisdiction of the authorities can always be considered by the authorities. Even otherwise, a writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable in view of the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunishetty Satyanarayan (supra).

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner/Assessee had filed a writ petition challenging the notice issued to him under the unamended and omitted Section 148 of the Act, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice passed under Section 148 of the Act against him.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that the authorities had misinterpreted the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal. It was further submitted that by way of colourable exercise of power, they issued the ultra vires Instructions No.01 of 2022, thereby illegally extending the limitation for continuing reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 read with Section 148A, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act.

Per contra, the Respondent authorities raised their objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunishetty Satyanarayan. On the question of legal validity of the impugned orders, the Respondent authorities argued that they proceeded against the Petitioner in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ashish Agarwal case. It was submitted that the authorities had initially issued a notice to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Act. Later, they again issued the impugned notices of assessment asking a response within 30 days from the Petitioner.

With respect to the argument on limitation raised by the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities submitted that the same could be raised by him by preferring an appeal before them under Section 246 of the Act.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the Respondent authorities had proceeded in line with the directions given by the Apex Court in Ashish Agarwal case. Further, the Court concurred with the submission of the Respondent authorities that the Petitioner may avail the alternate remedy available to him under Section 246 of the Act-

In view of the aforesaid, this Court refrains to interfere in the impugned orders/notices passed by the authorities as the same is issued in pursuance to judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present petition is held to be not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunishetty Satyanarayan (supra) and in view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with liberty extended to the Petitioner to avail such remedy as available under the law.