Kishore Kumar Singh Son Of Late Madan Kumar Singh Resident Ofbiscomaun Colony, Sandalpur, Gulzarbagh, P.o. Gulzarbagh, P.s. - Alamganj,Patna v. The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle - 4 Patna, 3Rdfloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.587 of 2022 ====================================================== Kishore Kumar Singh Son of Late Madan Kumar Singh Resident ofBiscomaun Colony, Sandalpur, Gulzarbagh, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. - Alamganj,Patna - 800007, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 4 Patna, 3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 2.The Additional / Joint Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 3.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 4, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak JaiPrakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna.Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. . ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2821 of 2022 ====================================================== Jayanti Sinha Wife of B.N. Sinha, Resident of 769A, Sushila Bhawan,Buddha Colony, East Boring Canal Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - BuddhaColony, Patna - 800 001, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Patna, Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4 Patna, 3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna.Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 3.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2943 of 2022 ====================================================== Shree Nathji Gems and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Companyincorporated under the companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at103, City Palace, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. -Kotwali through its Director, Pranav Sunil Dokania, aged about 29 years,male, son of Sunil Kumar Hari Prasad Dokania, Resident of A- 1003, SatelliteTower, Film City Road, Near Wageshawari Mandir, Goregaon East, Mumbai -400063, P.O. - Goregaon East and P.S. - Dindoshi, Malad East, District-Borivali, (Maharashtra) ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1 Patna, Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 Patna, 3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna.Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 3.The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3512 of 2022 ====================================================== Prit Diajewels Pvt. Ltd., a Privare Limited Compony incorporated Under theCompanies Act, 1956, jhaving its Registered Office at 103, City Palace, NewDak Bungalow Road, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali through its Director,Pranav Sunil Dokania, aged about 29 Years, Male, Son of Sunil Dokania,Resident of A-1003, Satellite Tower, Film City Road, Near WageshwariMandir, Gotegaon East, Mumbai-400 063, P.O.-Goregaon East and P.S.-Dindoshi, Malad East, Borivali, (Maharashtra). ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3512 of 2022 ====================================================== Prit Diajewels Pvt. Ltd., a Privare Limited Compony incorporated Under theCompanies Act, 1956, jhaving its Registered Office at 103, City Palace, NewDak Bungalow Road, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali through its Director,Pranav Sunil Dokania, aged about 29 Years, Male, Son of Sunil Dokania,Resident of A-1003, Satellite Tower, Film City Road, Near WageshwariMandir, Gotegaon East, Mumbai-400 063, P.O.-Goregaon East and P.S.-Dindoshi, Malad East, Borivali, (Maharashtra). ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Patna, 3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna.Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 3.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3900 of 2022 ====================================================== Basudeo Prasad Son of Gopi Krishna Sarraf, Resident of G3A, ExhibitionRoad, Pusp Vihar, Patna, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, District - Patna having officeat 5th Floor, Puja Apartment, Wing A, New Dak Bungalow Road, Patna -800001, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna Central RevenueBuilding, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 2.The Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Patna, 3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna.Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna. 3.The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 587 of 2022)For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGHORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)Date : 22-04-2025 Pursuant to earlier orders, Ms. Neha Singh, DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax is present in the Court. 2. In the instant writ petitions, petitioners have prayedfor the following reliefs : In CWJC No. 587 of 2022 : “i) For issuance of writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the Notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated31.03.2021, for assessment year 2016-17 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4, Patna(Respondent No. 1) herein and also referred to as the“Assessing Officer” hereinafter) initiating proceedingsfor reassessment against the Petitioner as being whollyillegal and without jurisdiction as the same has beeninitiated on mere change of opinion. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the preliminary order dated 21.12.2021whereby the petitioner’s objection dated 02.12.2021 onthe issue of assumption of jurisdiction has been rejectedby National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (alsoreferred to as the “NFAC” hereinafter) without havingjurisdiction over the petitioner’s case and in utterviolation of Principles of Natural Justice that too by anon-speaking and cryptic order passed only as a formalobservance of the procedure laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) vs.ITO and Others reporeted in (2003) 259 ITR 19. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the preliminary order dated 21.12.2021whereby the petitioner’s objection dated 02.12.2021 onthe issue of assumption of jurisdiction has been rejectedby National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (alsoreferred to as the “NFAC” hereinafter) without havingjurisdiction over the petitioner’s case and in utterviolation of Principles of Natural Justice that too by anon-speaking and cryptic order passed only as a formalobservance of the procedure laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) vs.ITO and Others reporeted in (2003) 259 ITR 19. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notices under Section 143(2) dated23.11.2021 by which the Assessing Officer (R-1) hasassumed jurisdiction to asses / reassess the allegedescaped income. iv) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordship may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” In CWJC No. 2821 of 2022 : “i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the Notice u/s 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 31.03.2021(Annexure-1), for assessment year 2015-16 issued by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna (the Respondent No. 2 herein and also referred to as the“Assessing Officer” hereinafter) initiating proceedingsfor reassessment against the Petitioner as being whollyarbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction as the same hasbeen initiated in absence of any finding attributingfailure on part of the petitioner in disclosing fully andtruly all material facts necessary for assessment and onmere change of opinion. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the preliminary order dated 01.02.2022 passedin pursuance of the said Notice by National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi ((Respondent No. 3) herein andalso referred to as the “NFAC” hereinafter) whereby thepetitioner’s objection on the issue of assumption ofjurisdiction has been rejected by a non-speaking andcryptic order passed only as a formal observance of theprocedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of GKN Driveshaft (India) vs. ITO and Othersreported I (2003) 259 ITR 19. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice under section 143(2) dated23.11.2021 by which the Respondent No. 2 has assumedjurisdiction to assess / reassess the alleged escapedincome. iv) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice under section 142 (1) dated14.12.2021 by which the Respondent No. 3 has assumedjurisdiction to assess / reassess the alleged escapedincome. v) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordships may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” In CWJC No. 2943 of 2022 : “i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the unsigned noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“theAct”) dated 27.03.2021 (Annexure – 1), for assessmentyear 2014-15 issued by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-1, Patna (the Respondent No. 2herein and also referred to as the “Assessing Officer”hereinafter) initiating proceedings for reassessmentagainst the Petitioner as being barred by limitation,wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as the notice hasbeen issued beyond the limitation prescribed underSection 149 and the initiation is without recording anyfinding attributing failure on the part of the petitioner indisclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary forassessment and on mere change opinion. “i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the unsigned noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“theAct”) dated 27.03.2021 (Annexure – 1), for assessmentyear 2014-15 issued by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-1, Patna (the Respondent No. 2herein and also referred to as the “Assessing Officer”hereinafter) initiating proceedings for reassessmentagainst the Petitioner as being barred by limitation,wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as the notice hasbeen issued beyond the limitation prescribed underSection 149 and the initiation is without recording anyfinding attributing failure on the part of the petitioner indisclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary forassessment and on mere change opinion. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice under section 142(1) dated16.11.2021 by which Respondent No. 3 has assumedjurisdiction to assess / reassess the alleged escapedincome by requisitioning certain details which wererequisitioned in course of original assessment culminatedvide order under Section 143(3) dated 26.09.2016. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the preliminary order dated 17.12.2021 passedin pursuance of the said Notice by National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi [(Respondent No. 3) herein andalso referred to as the “NFAC” hereinafter] whereby thepetitioner’s objection on the issue of assumption ofjurisdiction has been rejected by a non-speaking andcryptic order passed only as a formal observance of theprocedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) vs. ITO and Othersreported in (2003) 259 ITR 19. iv) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordships may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” In CWJC No. 3512 of 2022 : “i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the unsigned noticeunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“theAct”) dated 31.03.2021, for assessment year 2014-15issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Patna (the Respondent No. 2 herein and alsoreferred to as the “Assessing Officer” hereinafter)initiating proceedings for reassessment against thePetitioner as being barred by limitation, wholly illegaland without jurisdiction as the notice has been issuedbeyond the limitation prescribed under Section 149 andthe initiation is without recording any finding attributingfailure on part of the petitioner in disclosing fully andtruly all material facts necessary for assessment and onmere change opinion. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice under section 142(1) dated08.01.2022 by which the National Faceless AssessmentCentre, Delhi [(Respondent No. 3) herein and alsoreferredtoas“NFAC” hereinafter)] has assumed jurisdiction to assess /reassess the alleged escaped income by requisitioningcertain details which were requisitioned in course oforiginal assessment culminated vide order under Section143(3) dated 30.07.2016. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice cum clarification letter dated25.01.2022 passed by NFAC whereby the petitioner hasbeen required to submit documents as requisitioned videnotice u/s 142(1). iv) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordships may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” In CWJC No. 3900 of 2022 : iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice cum clarification letter dated25.01.2022 passed by NFAC whereby the petitioner hasbeen required to submit documents as requisitioned videnotice u/s 142(1). iv) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordships may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” In CWJC No. 3900 of 2022 : “i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or anyother appropriate writ quashing the notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated31.03.2021 (Annexure – 1), for assessment year 2015-16issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Patna (the Respondent No. 2 herein and alsoreferred to as the “Assessing Officer” hereinafter)initiating proceedings for reassessment against thePetitioner without recording any finding attributingfailure on part of the petitioner in disclosing fully andtruly all material facts necessary for assessment and onmere change opinion. ii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the preliminary order dated 22.02.2022 passedin pursuance of the said Notice by National FacelessAssessment Centre, Delhi [(Respondent No. 3) herein andalso referred to as the “NFAC” hereinafter] whereby thepetitioner’s objection on the issue of assumption ofjurisdiction has been rejected by a non-speaking andcryptic order passed only as a formal observance of theprocedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of GKN Driveshafts (India) vs. ITO and Othersreported in (2003) 259 ITR 19. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writquashing the notice under Section 142(1) dated24.02.2022 by which the Respondent No. 2 has assumedjurisdiction to assess / reassess the alleged escapedincome by requisitioning certain details which wererequisitioned in course of original assessment culminatedvide order under Section 143(3) dated 29.12.2017. iv) For issuance of any other writ, order ordirection which your Lordships may deem fit and properin the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Matter was heard earlier on 08.04.2025 and the Co- ordinate Bench has passed the following order : “Matter heard at length. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents are heavily relyingon audit objection made them to reopen the assessment for the year2016 and 2017 of the petitioner. Therefore, they are hereby directed toproduce copy of the complete order sheet maintained by them inrespect of the present case and so also audit objection raised by thecompetent authority. Further, we request respondents to peruse &appraise Supreme Court decision in the case of ORXY FisheriesPrivate Limited vs Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 13SCC 427 in paragraphs 40 and 41 as well as Kranti AssociatesPrivate Limited and Another vs Masood Ahmed Khan and Othersreported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Paragraph 47 which reads asunder :- “47. Summarising the above discussion, thisCourt holds: (a) In India the judicial trend hasalways been to record reasons, even inadministrative decisions, if such decisionsaffect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority mustrecord reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons ismeant to serve the wider principle of justicethat justice must not only be done it must alsoappear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operatesas a valid restraint on any possible arbitraryexercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or evenadministrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion hasbeen exercised by the decision-maker onrelevant grounds and by disregardingextraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become asindispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles ofnatural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial andeven by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process ofjudicial review by superior courts. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons ismeant to serve the wider principle of justicethat justice must not only be done it must alsoappear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operatesas a valid restraint on any possible arbitraryexercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or evenadministrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion hasbeen exercised by the decision-maker onrelevant grounds and by disregardingextraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become asindispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles ofnatural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial andeven by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process ofjudicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in allcountries committed to rule of law andconstitutional governance is in favour ofreasoned decisions based on relevant facts.This is virtually the lifeblood of judicialdecision-making justifying the principle thatreason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicialopinions these days can be as different as thejudges and authorities who deliver them. Allthese decisions serve one common purposewhich is to demonstrate by reason that therelevant factors have been objectivelyconsidered. This is important for sustaining thelitigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is arequirement for both judicial accountabilityand transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicialauthority is not candid enough about his/herdecision-making process then it is impossibleto know whether the person deciding is faithfulto the doctrine of precedent or to principles ofincrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions mustbe cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to beequated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted thattransparency is the sine qua non of restraint onabuse of judicial powers. Transparency indecision-making not only makes the judges anddecision-makers less prone to errors but alsomakes them subject to broader scrutiny. (SeeDavid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor[(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (n) Since the requirement to recordreasons emanates from the broad doctrine offairness in decision-making, the saidrequirement is now virtually a component ofhuman rights and was considered part ofStrasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v.Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford[2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] , wherein theCourt referred to Article 6 of the EuropeanConvention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons mustbe given for judicial decisions”. (o) In all common law jurisdictionsjudgments play a vital role in setting upprecedents for the future. Therefore, fordevelopment of law, requirement of givingreasons for the decision is of the essence and isvirtually a part of “due process.” 3. The respondents-Income Tax Department areexercising quasi-judicial functions, therefore, they are liable to followthe aforementioned principle laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, in the present case, whether they have followed theaforementioned procedures or not, is to be apprised on the next dateof hearing. Further to examine decision in the case of Nusli N. Wadiavs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, reported in(2023) 16 SCC 677. 4. List this matter for further hearing on 22.04.2025.” 4. It is necessary to reproduce impugned show cause notice (Annexure - 1) which reads as under : “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCEINCOME TAX DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA To, Kishore Kumar SinghSandalpur Sandalpur, Biscoman ColonyGulzarbagh 800007, BiharIndia PAN: AY:Dated : DIN & Notice No : AGPPS2858F2016-1731/03/2021ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032077395(1) 4. List this matter for further hearing on 22.04.2025.” 4. It is necessary to reproduce impugned show cause notice (Annexure - 1) which reads as under : “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCEINCOME TAX DEPARTMENTOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA To, Kishore Kumar SinghSandalpur Sandalpur, Biscoman ColonyGulzarbagh 800007, BiharIndia PAN: AY:Dated : DIN & Notice No : AGPPS2858F2016-1731/03/2021ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032077395(1) Notice Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/ M/s, Whereas I have reasons to believe that your Income chargeable to Taxfor the Assessment Year 2016-17 has escaped Assessment within themeaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess/re-assess the income/loss for the saidAssessment Year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form forthe said Assessment Year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfactionof the RANGE 4, PATNA. SAURABH UPADHYAYDC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA” 5. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requiresreasons in support of notice or not. We are of the view thatwhatever notice issued by the official respondent, it must besupported by reasons otherwise aggrieved person has noopportunity of filing his detailed explanation to such notice.Reading of the aforementioned notice, it is very bald and vague,resultantly, petitioners are not in a position to submit theirexplanation effectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that inthe absence of reasons, notice is liable to be set aside. Therespondents are exercising quasi judicial functions while invokingSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In other words, theauthority who has issued notice on 31.03.2021 is exercising quasijudicial functions. In such circumstances, whatever the noticeissued must be supported by reasons. On this ground, theimpugned notice is liable to set aside and writ petitions are to beallowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentsresisted the aforementioned contentions and submitted that interms of unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961there is no provision for issuance of notice along with reasons soalso amended Section 148 was notified on 01.04.2021. In thepresent case, unamended Section 148 is applicable. Further,learned counsel for the respondents relied on decisions of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKS Driveshafts (India)Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 7731to 7737 of 2002 decided on November 25, 2002, Paragraph No. 5on the issue that notice need not be supported by reasons.Similarly, in the case of Nusli N. Wadia vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax And Another in the Bombay High Court judgement dated 07.01.2022 reported in (2022) 447 ITR363 read with in the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in(2023) 16 SCC 677. In the light of statutory provisions underSection 148 read with the aforementioned decisions, therespondent authorities need not assign the reasons in support ofnotice issued under Section 148 to the petitioners, therefore,petitioners have not made out a case so as to interfere with theimpugned notice dated 31.03.2021. 8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. Court judgement dated 07.01.2022 reported in (2022) 447 ITR363 read with in the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in(2023) 16 SCC 677. In the light of statutory provisions underSection 148 read with the aforementioned decisions, therespondent authorities need not assign the reasons in support ofnotice issued under Section 148 to the petitioners, therefore,petitioners have not made out a case so as to interfere with theimpugned notice dated 31.03.2021. 8. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 9. Core issue involved in the present lis is whetherofficial respondent while issuing notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 require to furnish reasons or not? Thelearned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reasons aremandatory requirement to meet Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia otherwise petitioners are not in a position to submit theirexplanation in effective manner. It is also submitted thatrespondents while issuing notice under Section 148 are exercisingquasi judicial functions, therefore, any quasi judicial action takenby the official respondent, it must be supported by reasonsotherwise aggrieved person has no opportunity of submission ofeffective reply to the notice. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on thecited decisions supra to contend that no reasons are required to befurnished along with the notice under Section 148, the samecannot be appreciated for the reasons that assuming that Section148 does not prescribe notice must be supported by reasons, it is aquasi judicial function of the authority and it has repercussioninsofar as in submitting effective reply or material to the noticeissued under Section 148. In other words, reasonable opportunityis not provided to meet the notice. In the absence of any specificstipulation of assigning reasons under Section 148, still theauthorities were required to follow the principles laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries PrivateLimited vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC427. That apart, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad andOthers vs. B. Karunakar and Othersreported in (1993) 4 SCC727, in which it is held that if the statutory provision does notprovide issuance of second show cause notice and the inquiringofficer’s report, still the disciplinary authority was required toissue second show cause notice along with inquiring officer’sreport, the same principle is applicable to the case in hand to theextent of meeting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Decision in the case of GKN Driveshafts (citedsupra) it is not that reasons have not been issued along with thenotice, there are dearth of reasons, the same decision is notapplicable to the case in hand, on the other hand, in the presentcase not even iota of material like reasons supporting the notice.Nusli N. Wadia case (cited supra) in which the Bombay HighCourt passed the following order : “1. We are not inclined to interfere inour jurisdiction under article 226 of theConstitution of India. 2. The petition dismissed. 3. At the same time, considering thereply that is filed, we direct the respondents toprovide a copy of the reasons based on whichnotice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961, was issued, within four weeks from today.Thereafter, the petitioner may respond to thenotice and the respondents will follow due processin accordance with law.” 12. Paragraph No. 3 is specific insofar as providing copyof the reasons based on which notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 was issued and it should be provided withina period of four weeks from date of judgment and it has beenaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in (2023) 16 SCC 677. It is necessary to reproduce the Hon’bleSupreme Court’s decision and it reads as under : 2. The petition dismissed. 3. At the same time, considering thereply that is filed, we direct the respondents toprovide a copy of the reasons based on whichnotice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961, was issued, within four weeks from today.Thereafter, the petitioner may respond to thenotice and the respondents will follow due processin accordance with law.” 12. Paragraph No. 3 is specific insofar as providing copyof the reasons based on which notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 was issued and it should be provided withina period of four weeks from date of judgment and it has beenaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in (2023) 16 SCC 677. It is necessary to reproduce the Hon’bleSupreme Court’s decision and it reads as under : “1. The impugned order dated 7-1-2022, it has been rightly contended, is a non-speaking and cryptic order. However, we are notinclined to issue notice in the present special leavepetition and leave it open to the petitioner to filereturn of income under protest within one month,without prejudice to the rights and contentions,and ask for the reasons for issue of notice underSection 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Theprocedure as prescribed in GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. vs. CIT, would be followed by theassessing officer. In case of an adverse order, itwill be open to the petitioner to challenge thesame. 2. All contentions are left open.3. In view of the aforesaid, the specialleave petition is dismissed. Pendingapplication(s), if any, stand disposed of.” Reading of the aforementioned decision, it iscrystal clear that notice must be supported by reasons. 13. In the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal in Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 (2024 INSC 754)decided on 03.10.2024 in Paragraph Nos. 93 and 102, the Hon’bleSupreme Court held as under : 93. In Union of India v. AshishAgarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] , this court was aware of the fact that it couldnot have used its jurisdiction under article 142 toaffect the vested rights of the assessees bydeeming section 148 notices under the old regimeas section 148 notices under the new regime.Hence, it deemed the reassessment notices issuedunder the old regime as show-cause notices undersection 148A(b) of the new regime. Further, thecourt directed the Revenue to provide all therelevant material or information to the assesseesand thereafter allowed the assessees to respond tothe show-cause notice by availing of all thedefences, including those available under section149.Thus, the court balanced the equities betweenthe Revenue and the assessees by giving effect tothe legislative scheme of reassessment ascontained under the new regime. It supplementedthe existing legal framework of the procedure ofreassessment under the Income-tax Act with aremedy grounded in equitable standards. 102. While creating the legal fictionin Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022)444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] , thiscourt was cognizant of the fact that theAssessing Officers were effectively inhibitedfrom performing their responsibility undersection 148A until the requirement of supply ofrelevant material and information to theassessees was fulfilled. This court lifted theinhibition by directing the Assessing Officersto supply the assessees with the relevant material and information relied upon by theRevenue within thirty days from the date of thejudgment.Thus, during the period between theissuance of the deemed notices and the date ofjudgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal[(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] ,the Assessing Officers were deemed to havebeen prohibited from proceeding with thereassessment proceedings. Underline Supplied 14. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofManaging Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others (cited supra),it is held as under : material and information relied upon by theRevenue within thirty days from the date of thejudgment.Thus, during the period between theissuance of the deemed notices and the date ofjudgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal[(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.] ,the Assessing Officers were deemed to havebeen prohibited from proceeding with thereassessment proceedings. Underline Supplied 14. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofManaging Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others (cited supra),it is held as under : “19. In Mohd. Ramzan Khan case[(1991) 1 SCC 588 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 612 :(1991) 16 ATC 505] the question squarely fellfor consideration before a Bench of threelearned Judges of this Court, viz., thatalthough on account of the Forty-secondAmendment of the Constitution, it was nolonger necessary to issue a notice to thedelinquent employee to show cause against thepunishment proposed and, therefore, to furnisha copy of the enquiry officer's report alongwith the notice to make representation againstthe penalty, whether it was still necessary tofurnish a copy of the report to him to enablehim to make representation against thefindings recorded against him in the report before the disciplinary authority took its owndecision with regard to the guilt or otherwiseof the employee by taking into considerationthe said report. The Court held that wheneverthe enquiry officer is other than thedisciplinary authority and the report of theenquiry officer holds the employee guilty of allor any of the charges with proposal for anypunishment or not, the delinquent employee isentitled to a copy of the report to enable him tomake a representation to the disciplinaryauthority against it and the non-furnishing ofthe report amounts to a violation of the rulesof natural justice. However, after taking thisview, the Court directed that the law laid downthere shall have prospective application andthe punishment which is already imposed shallnot be open to challenge on that ground.Unfortunately, the Court by mistake allowedall the appeals which were before it and thusset aside the disciplinary action in every case,by failing to notice that the actions in thosecases were prior to the said decision. Thisanomaly was noticed at a later stage butbefore the final order could be reviewed andrectified, the present reference was alreadymade, as stated above, by a Bench of threelearned Judges. The anomaly has thus lentanother dimension to the question to beresolved in the present case.” 15. The general principle insofar as providingopportunity or reasons in support of any adverse order or civilconsequence, in such circumstance invariably reasons must besupported. In the present case, by virtue of notice under Section148, petitioners are required to submit their explanation orwhatever the materials. In this regard, unless and until petitionersare made known that they have to answer to the notice and it is notsupported by reasons, otherwise they are not in a position tosubmit effective reply / explanation with the material information.On this score the petitioners have made out a case. Accordingly,impugned Notices dated 31.03.2021 and 23.11.2021 (Annexures -1 and 3) and Order dated 21.12.2021 (Annexure - 2) in CWJC No.587 of 2022, Notices dated 31.03.2021, 23.11.2021, 14.12.2021(Annexures – 1, 3 and 4) and Order dated 01.02.2022 (Annexure –2) in CWJC No. 2821 of 2022, Notices dated 27.03.2021 and16.11.2021 (Annexure - 1 and 2) and Order dated 17.12.2021(Annexure – 3) in CWJC No. 2943 of 2022, Notices dated31.03.2021, 08.01.2022 and 25.01.2022 (Annexures – 1, 2 and 3)in CWJC No. 3512 of 2022 and Notices dated 31.03.2021 and24.02.2022 (Annexures - 1 and 3) and order dated 22.02.2022(Annexure – 2) in CWJC No. 3900 of 2022 stand set aside. 16. Writ petitions stand allowed. Reserving liberty to therespondents to issue fresh notice supported by reasons, suchexercise shall be undertaken within a period eight weeks fromtoday, reserving liberty to raise such other contentions on behalf ofthe petitioners are left open to be urged before concernedauthority/forum. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./-AFR/NAFRAFR CAV DATEUploading Date25.04.2025Transmission Date (S. B. Pd. Singh, J)